"Each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone facsimile messages after October 30, 2013 offering seal coating, building maintenance, facilities management, janitorial, or general contracting services by calling 1-866- 793-3735 that did not inform the fax recipient that he or she may make a request to the sender of the advertisement not to send any future facsimile advertisements and that failure to comply with the request within 30 days in unlawful."

AIRBNB INC: Yaletown Council Mulls Suit Over Rental Listings------------------------------------------------------------Frances Bula, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that aYaletown strata council has developed an aggressive new strategyto try to keep Airbnb rentals out of its building.

It's given up on going after condo owners themselves. Instead, itis targeting the online vacation-rental service itself.

The Parkview Gardens strata has had a lawyer send demand lettersto the offices of Airbnb in Ireland and San Francisco, as well asthe e-mail address for customer relations, listing all theapartments suspected of being rented out and telling the companyto order hosts to stop listing them.

Even though Airbnb has responded by saying only that it will passthe message on to the hosts, many of those hosts do remove theirlisting, says a representative for the strata.

"It's a very novel approach," said Polina Furtula, a lawyer who isalso on the Parkview Gardens strata council.

The council turned to that strategy because, she said, "if youfollow the current regulations for stratas, it's almost impossibleto catch someone. It's very frustrating."

Now, Ms. Furtula says, the council is so encouraged by the resultsthat it is planning a class-action lawsuit against Airbnb to getrid of the remaining holdouts in the building.

The 91-unit Parkview building has become a prime spot for rentalsbecause it is directly opposite the Yaletown Canada Line station,making it very attractive for visitors.

"We're constantly seeing people coming and going with their littlesuitcases," she said.

The council has been trying to crack down on the short-termrentals for at least a couple of years.

At first, people would use their real names and so the councilcould try to go after owners that way.

Then people stopped using real names and started being morecautious about the pictures they posted to make it harder toidentify where the unit was. But strata-council members couldstill spot photos of common areas and views from inside theapartments looking out.

However, when they tried using strata rules to notify owners thatthey were in violation of those rules and would be fined, ownerswould declare vehemently that the apartment wasn't theirs.

The Parkview Gardens council is in the same situation as hundredsof other strata councils in Vancouver, Victoria and Toronto, whereshort-term vacation rentals are extremely popular and vacancyrates are low.

But their efforts have been unco-ordinated and "somewhatpiecemeal," said Octavian Cadabeschi, a researcher with theVancouver hotel workers' union UNITE HERE Local 40. It is amember of a group called Fairbnb that has been highlightingproblems with short-term vacation rentals and cities' efforts toregulate them.

Some condo boards in Toronto have started lawsuits against hostsin their buildings. Others have tried levying fines. Some arehiring investigators to find rule-breaking owners.

Fairbnb has advocated that cities such as Vancouver insist thatAirbnb take some responsibility for policing listings, instead ofleaving it up to city officials to try to figure out who isoperating illegally.

Vancouver plans to begin its regulation of short-term rentals nextApril, limiting them to people who are renting out a room in thehouse where they live or the whole house while they are away onvacation.

Commercial operations that treat an apartment like a year-roundhotel room won't be allowed.

The past count of listings found about 6,000 in the Vancouver areajust from Airbnb. There are about a dozen companies that provideshort-term-rental platforms.

Airbnb and HomeAway have been in discussions with the city andpromised to co-operate, but not to the extent of monitoring hostsfor business licences or legality.

Airbnb's Canadian press secretary, Lindsey Scully, said thecompany does have a "neighbour tool" -- a place on the site whereneighbours can write in to complain about noise, damage or anyother problem so that Airbnb can let the host know.

She said that, when the company gets complaints from neighbours,Airbnb passes those messages on to the hosts.

"We remind them they are supposed to abide by local rules andregulations. It's up to the host to decide how they handle that."

Airbnb has been under pressure from cities around the world, aslocal residents have complained that affordable rentals aredisappearing for them and as municipal politicians move toregulate them.

It has led to lawsuits in cities such as San Francisco and NewYork.

Ms. Scully said the company, besides working with cities, hasstarted a new program to work directly with whole buildings.

In about two-dozen buildings around the United States, the stratacouncil gets access to a dashboard that allows them to see exactlywhat is being rented out by whom and when and has control overrules about pets or parking or numbers of nights a unit can berented.

Most important, Airbnb is giving those buildings between 5 percent and 15 per cent of the booking cost to cover the higher costof maintenance and repairs. [GN]

The Plaintiffs allege that Honda sold cars with defective windowregulators. In March 2017, Plaintiffs filed a new motion forclass certification and indicated to the Court that they haveretained a new export, Glenn Akhevein, and narrowed their proposedclass to the 2003-2008 Honda Pilot models.

The trial court notes it has "broad discretion" in decidingwhether to certify a class, but that discretion must be exercisedwithin the framework Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23. The class may only becertified if the trial court determines, after a rigorous analysisthat the prerequisites of Rule 23 have been satisfied. In order tomake this determination, the Court must also examine any issuesthat are enmeshed in the factual and legal issues comprising thePlaintiff's cause of action.

In denying Plaintiffs' expert, the court called Mr. Akhavein'stestimony "half-baked, warmed-over conclusions" that areinsufficient to survive a Daubert motion. The court noted, "Inessence, Akhavein relies only on his own personal belief thatwindow regulators should last indefinitely."

According to the court, the exclusion of Mr. Akhavein's testimonyis fatal to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. Withoutthis testimony Plaintiffs are unable to meet the requirements ofRule 23 -- they have no way of demonstrating the commonalityrequired by Rule 23.

"All they have is a series of window regulators that may or maynot have broken before they were supposed to, and these breakagesmay or may not have been caused by a common defect which may ormay not exist. This is manifestly inadequate to satisfy Rule 23,"the court says.

The court declined to rule on Plaintiffs' motion to excludeDefendant's expert at this time.

Australia's third-largest lender, which had previously said itwould defend itself against the allegations, did not give a reasonfor its decision to settle or disclose financial terms. It saidit would make a more detailed statement in two days time aftermore progress had been made on the agreement.

The deal could open ANZ to possible class action lawsuits fromshareholders and also throws the spotlight on Westpac BankingCorporation and National Australia Bank which are facing similarallegations that they rigged a benchmark rate used to pricefinancial products.

"Any settlement was likely premised on them admitting that they'vedone the wrong thing, which does open the way up for classactions," said CLSA banking analyst Brian Johnson, although headded that the settlement sum with ASIC was likely to beimmaterial in size.

ANZ said the financial impact would be reflected in the bank'sannual earnings due on Thursday.

The court hearings had been due to start on Oct. 23 but had nowbeen adjourned until Oct. 25 at the request of the AustralianSecurities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

Westpac spokesman David Lording, in an emailed statement, declinedto say whether the bank was also likely to settle, but added:"ASIC's case against each of the banks and the underpinning factsare all different."

NAB spokesman Mark Alexander said the bank continued to be indiscussions with the regulator but declined further comment. Bothbanks have previously said they would dispute the claims in court.

ASIC's allegations that the three lenders were involved in riggingthe bank bill swap reference rate (BBSW) is only one of severalscandals engulfing Australia's banking sector in which lendershave also been accused of widespread abuses at their financialadvice and insurance units.

But it has been taken to court by anti-money-laundering agencyAUSTRAC which has accused it of more 50,000 breaches of anti-moneylaundering rules. ASIC has also launched its own investigationinto the matter.

CBA has not disputed that it processed tens of thousands ofillicit transfers but argues the breaches were largely caused by asoftware glitch and contests its level of responsibility.

The BBSW is the primary interest rate benchmark used in Australianmarkets to price home loans, credit cards and other financialproducts. ASIC, which filed the lawsuits last year, has allegedthat rate-rigging at the lenders took place between 2010 and 2012.The method used to calculate the BBSW was changed in 2013.

Australia's four major lenders control 80 percent of the country'slending market and have posted record profits for years.

APEX BEHAVIORAL: Court Denies Approval of Class Notice------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District ofIndiana, Evansville Division, issued an Order denying the parties'Agreed Motion for Approval and to Facilitate Notice to CollectivePlaintiffs Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b) in the casecaptioned CHARLOTTE FARRAR, individually and on behalf of thosesimilarly situated, Plaintiff, v. APEX BEHAVIORAL SERVICES, LLP,Defendant, Cause No. 3:17-cv-79-WTL-MPB (S.D. Ind.).

The Court notes, among other things, that the notice states thatit is addressed to the following groups:

All current and former Apex Behavioral Services, LLPemployees who held hourly non-exempt positions as Direct SupportProfessionals or other functionally equivalent positions whoworked from January 1, 2015 to September 30, 2015; and

All current and former Apex Behavioral Services, LLP employeeswho held hourly non-exempt positions as Home Manager and/or Leador other functionally equivalent positions who worked from January1, 2015 to September 30, 2016.

The Court said it does not know what other functionally equivalentpositions means in this context and, more importantly, suspectsthat those receiving the Notice also would not know. In theirmotion, the parties state that the notice will be sent to peoplewho held the titles of 'Home Manager' and/or 'Lead' from January1, 2015 through September 30, 2016; and/or Only held the title of'Direct Support Professional' from January 1, 2015 throughSeptember 30, 2015. The Notice should be consistent with thisagreement by the parties and all references to functionallyequivalent positions should be removed throughout.

The Court held that if counsel agree with the changes set forthabove, they should include them in the Notice submitted with anyamended motion for approval. If they do not, they should includean explanation of their position in any amended motion.

Associated Wholesale Grocers (AWG) is a cooperative foodwholesaler to independently-owned supermarkets, where Moody workedas a supervisor at a distribution center in Pearl River,Louisiana. AWG did not pay him overtime even though he regularlyworked significant hours in excess of 40 hours in a workweek, saysthe complaint.

Associated Wholesale Grocers (AWG) is a cooperative foodwholesaler to independently-owned supermarkets, where Piazzaworked as a supervisor at a distribution center in Pearl River,Louisiana. AWG did not pay him overtime even though he worked moreregularly worked significant hours in excess of 40 hours in aworkweek.

Under the provisions of the applicable Wage Order No. 4,Plaintiffs and class members should have received overtime payfrom defendants in amounts according to proof. Defendants failedto pay Plaintiffs and class members overtime pay. Defendants'failure to pay overtime pay violates Wage Order No. 4 and LaborCode, the lawsuit asserts.

AVEO: Faces Class Action Amid ACCC Probe Into Fair Housing Fees---------------------------------------------------------------Sandra Argese, writing for The West Australian, reports thatthousands of Australian seniors and their families are allegedlybeing taken advantage of by some retirement housing providers,according to a leading law firm.

Understandably generating a high level of concern for people whomay be physically or mentally vulnerable and are looking to enjoytheir retirement, these people are reportedly being exploited viaunscrupulous business models.

In the wake of an Australian Competition and Consumer Commission(ACCC) investigation and extensive news coverage of potentialbreaches of Australian consumer law, a class action case wasrecently filed against property and investment group Aveo byMaurice Blackburn Lawyers, following an ongoing investigation intoreports of unfair and unconscionable contracts.

In light of this recent case, some of Western Australia's leadingaged care providers provided comment on the importance of fairretirement housing contracts.

"The retirement villages legislation in Western Australia is veryspecific about the information which must be provided to peoplebefore they enter into a contract and it is probably the best inAustralia, having undergone significant changes in recent times toimprove consumer protection," he told West Real Estate.

The current legislation allows people at least 10 business days toreview an agreement. This provides the purchaser with theopportunity to ask questions, talk to family members and seeklegal and financial advice.

There is a further seven business days -- or 'cooling off' period-- after they sign the contract.

"Fees should be fair for all parties and transparent to theresident," Mr Graebner said.

"It is true that there are fees to be paid both during occupationand when leaving.

"There are reasons for these fees; the most important being thatthere are costs to building and maintaining accommodation andlifestyle facilities, as well as employing staff to provideservices."

Mr Graebner said retirement village living was not necessarily areal estate investment but more an investment in lifestyle that,if done right and fairly, could positively change a life.

"I can speak from experience as my mother lived very happily in aretirement village for a number of years in the location shepreferred close to her social and family network," he said.

"There was a cost but the benefits for her far outweighed this. Myexperience is that most people are very pleased with thedecision and many say to me they should have done it sooner."

Bethanie Chief Executive Officer Christopher How said moving intoa retirement village should be seen as starting an exciting newchapter of life.

"Like any major decision in life, the most important tip is tomake sure you feel comfortable and are fully informed beforeproceeding," he said.

"A good retirement village provider will take the time to explainall aspects of village life to you including the contract andfees."

While much of what is included in a contract is required by theRetirement Villages Act, this doesn't mean the contract should becomplicated and hard to understand, according to Mr How."Make sure the provider explains the contract and fees to you in away that is easily understood," he said.

"Ask plenty of questions and feel free to seek independent advice.

"If the provider can't answer your questions clearly or thereappears to be hidden or unreasonable costs, you may want toconsider another provider.

"Plan early and do your research. There are very good for-profitand not-for-profit providers; however, there are varying fees andamenities depending on the provider.

"You need to make sure the fees being charged are reasonable forthe amenities and services being offered." [GN]

BOW TIE: Faces Class Action Over Uncompleted Roofing Jobs---------------------------------------------------------Arezow Doost, writing for KXAN, reports that a New Braunfelsroofing company is hit with dozens of complaints after notcompleting work. Customers said Bow Tie Roofing Systems signedcontracts after some hail storms going back to more than a year,but work never started.

Cynthia and Kenny Felton's roof was damaged after a hail storm inApril of 2016. The couple made a deal with Bow Tie to get itrepaired several months later. "I put my faith in some peoplethat knocked on my door," said Cynthia Felton.

Her husband researched the company and said he didn't come acrossany red flags. "I checked on their status with the BetterBusiness Bureau and they had an A+ and I thought that was goodenough," said Kenny Felton.

The Feltons' are among a growing group who believe that ownershipchanges have cost them thousands of dollars, and they're notalone. The Better Business Bureau has gotten 82 complaintsagainst Bow Tie, investigators have confirmed at least 37consumers have yet to get refunds or have the work completed.

A BBB spokesperson said they got an increase in complaints againstBow Tie in early 2016 following a series of hailstorms thatimpacted Central Texas. The BBB said consumers allegedly paidupfront fees for services without any work being done monthslater. Customers also had trouble reaching anyone with thecompany. The BBB said, "Bow Tie's response to complaintstypically consisted of an apology and an explanation that thedelay and customer service issues were due to a backlog ofcontracts as a result of the hail storms and severe weather." BBBinvestigators discovered that Bow Tie continued to take on newclients who paid upfront fees.

Bow Tie was sold in April to some of its employees. In a lawsuitfiled against the original owners Jason and June Roberts, the newowners Jasmine Norris and her husband Joshua said, the sale of thebusiness was a sham. The lawsuit said tens of thousands ofdollars which the Roberts' promised would remain in companyaccounts -- disappeared. The suit goes on to say that money wasbeing spent on personal things.

In a statement, the Roberts' attorney says the Ms. Norris'abandoned the backlog of roofs -- and instead completed newercontracts, ultimately taking the money and walked away from thebusiness. The statement also said, "They are greatly saddened bythe situation of the homeowners and regret that the sale of thebusiness allowed such a thing to occur. The sale was intended tohelp the homeowners by providing a more present management teambut instead caused harm. Neither of the Roberts were aware at anytime (either during or after the sale of the business) of anyfraud or underhanded tactics being utilized by Bow Tie employee."

Jeffrey Kelly, who represents the Mr. Norris' said, "Since thereis pending litigation naming the true party at fault, we cannotcomment any further than to say that we maintain our client'sinnocence, believe that the Norris's will be exonerated of anywrongdoing, and hope for expeditious resolution for all partiesinvolved."

KXAN requested to speak with the previous and current Bow Tiebusiness owners, but attorneys declined.

The BBB says just recently Joshua Norris started a new roofingcompany also in New Braunfels named R & R Company, LLC. and waslooking for work after Hurricane Harvey. Their Facebook page hasbeen taken down, but the BBB said it stated, "We are new to thearea but not the roofing and restoration business!"

"I need to stop it," said Cynthia Felton "I don't want them to dothis to anybody else." The Felton's are now hoping and pushingfor criminal charges and are working with investigators in BexarCounty. The BBB said victims have gotten an attorney and arefiling a large class action lawsuit against Bow Tie.

The BBB has these tips to help consumers:

Do your homework. Check with BBB before choosing a roofingcontractor. Get referrals, compare price quotes, and confirm thecontact information of the contractor you choose.

Work closely with your insurance company on repairs. Make sure youunderstand how your homeowner's insurance company will reimburseyour repair costs. Before spending money, call your insurancecompany first to make sure all necessary procedures are followedaccording to your policy. If you do not follow your insurancecompany's guidelines, you may be stuck with the entire bill.

Ask about warranties. Warranties and workmanship are only as goodas the company that stands behind them. Trustworthy businesseswill offer information about how they plan to handle any repairscovered under their warranty, particularly if they are coming infrom another area.

Get everything in writing. Make sure all work is explained in thecontract, including cleanup, waste disposal and start andcompletion dates. Any verbal agreements that were made should beincluded in the contract. Pay close attention to the paymentterms, estimated price of materials, labor and any guarantees. Youshould also get a copy of the contractor's insurance. Any changesto your contract should be done in the form of a change order. Besure the contract includes a physical address and phone number ofthe contractor. If you can, visit the address.

Beware of rogue contractors. In the wake of a storm, dishonestroofing repair businesses will solicit work, often going door-to-door in unmarked trucks. They may require advance payment or makebig promises they won't deliver on. A common sales tactic is totell the homeowner that their roof is severely damaged from thestorm, but that their insurance company will likely cover thecost. The homeowner is then required to sign a contract and makean advance payment. In many of these cases, BBB hears that thejob is never completed and the insurance company does not coverthe cost.

To check out a company and find trustworthy businesses, go tobbb.org. [GN]

BRANCH BANKING: Gillam Sues over Payday Debt Traps--------------------------------------------------The case, CHRISTINE J. GILLAM, RONNIE GILLAM, and ELWOOD RODNEYBUMBRAY on behalf of themselves and all individuals similarlysituated, Plaintiffs, v. BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY OFVIRGINIA d/b/a BB&T, the Defendant, Case No. 3:17-cv-00722-JAG(E.D. Va., Oct. 27, 2017), challenges BB&T's practice of refusingto acknowledge its customers' revocation of authorization for pre-authorized electronic funds transfers and misrepresenting itscustomers' liability for the subsequent unauthorized transfers.Plaintiffs are Virginia consumers who were the victims of illegalpredatory lending schemes. After learning of the illegality oftheir loans, Plaintiffs revoked their authorization for electronicfunds transfers from their BB&T bank accounts and notified BB&Tthat the lenders were no longer authorized to make withdrawalsfrom their accounts. BB&T refused to acknowledge Plaintiffs'notifications that the transfers were no longer authorized andattempted to pass off liability for any subsequent unauthorizedtransfers onto Plaintiffs. Even worse, with respect to PlaintiffsChristine and Ronnie Gillam, BB&T assessed unnecessary "stop-payment" fees to stop the unauthorized transfers and then alsoassessed overdraft fees after it failed to stop the unauthorizedelectronic funds transfers. BB&T assessed an unnecessary $35stop-payment fee on Plaintiff Bumbray's existing account whilesimultaneously convincing him to open a new account.

The lawsuit contends that BB&T is in violation of the ElectronicFunds Transfer Act.

The lawsuit notes that payday loans and high-cost installmentloans trap consumers in debt they cannot afford. Typically, thelenders of these "payday debt traps" require consumers to providetheir bank account information and a pre-authorization toelectronically debit future payments from the consumer's bankaccount. These payday debt traps are illegal in many states,including in Virginia, which prohibits high interest loans withannual interest rates in excess of 12% by unlicensed lenders. The12% interest cap set forth in the Virginia Code is a codificationof Virginia's long standing intolerance for usurious lending. SeeRadford v. Cmty. Mortg. & Inv. Corp., 226 Va. 596, 601, 312 S.E.2d282, 285 (1984). Despite the illegality of these payday debt trapsin many states, predatory lenders are able to evade statelicensing and usury laws through internet lending and the use ofelectronic funds transfers withdrawn directly from consumers' bankaccounts.[BN]

Eldridge obtained a new cellular telephone number from CricketWireless. Shortly thereafter, he began receiving autodialed andprerecorded calls to his cellular telephone number from Cabela's,all seeking to collect an outstanding debt allegedly owed by theprior owner of Eldridge's cellular telephone number. Eldridge isnot a Cabela's customer and never provided his consent forCabela's to contact him.

Cabela's moved to stay these proceedings pending the outcome of acase currently before the United States Court of Appeals for theD.C. Circuit, ACA International v. Federal CommunicationCommission, No. 15-1211 (D.C. Cir.). Cabela's has also moved todismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and to strikethree of the four classes identified in Eldridge's complaint.

Cabela's fails to adequately address the fact that even followinga published opinion in ACA Int'l, the Court may draw from variousother appellate-court interpretations of the term called party, atleast until the FCC rules on the matter again. Ultimately,Cabela's cannot support its motion to stay on judicial-efficiencygrounds alone, especially given that prejudice to the non-movantis the most important consideration. Finding that the balance ofhardships weighs against granting a stay, the Court will denyCabela's motion to stay these proceedings.

Cabela's raises two arguments in support of its motion to dismiss.First, Cabela's argues that Eldridge has failed to plead factsestablishing direct or vicarious liability on the part ofCabela's. Specifically, Cabela's asserts that it cannot be heldliable for the acts of its subsidiary WFB. Cabela's also arguesthat Eldridge lacks standing to sue because he has not alleged anyconcrete injury that is fairly traceable to any party's use of anATDS or pre-recorded voice message.

In order to avoid dismissal for failure to state a claim, acomplaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted astrue, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.

Cabela's first argues that Eldridge has failed to plead factsestablishing that it is directly or vicariously liable for WFB'sactions.

An agent acts with actual authority when, at the time of takingaction that has legal consequences for the principal, the agentreasonably believes, in accordance with the principal'smanifestations to the agent, that the principal wishes the agentso to act. Specifically, actual, implied agency exists when anagent's acts are "necessary and incidental to achieving theprincipal's objectives, as the agent reasonably understands theprincipal's manifestations and objectives when the agentdetermines how to act.

The complaint raises a plausible inference that Cabela's ratifiedthe conduct in question. Ratification is the affirmance of a prioract done by another, whereby the act is given effect as if done byan agent acting with actual authority. A principal can ratify anact by "manifesting assent that the act shall affect the person'slegal relations," or by "conduct that justifies a reasonableassumption that the person so consents."

Here, Eldridge raises a plausible theory that Cabela's affirmedWFB's calling practices. WFB allegedly made the calls at issue forthe purpose of collecting balances owed on Cabela's credit cards.The complaint further alleges that Cabela's knew of WFB's callingpractices, as evidenced by its SEC filings. On its SEC Forms,Cabela's discusses its CLUB Visa credit card collection andrecovery processes with a first-person pronoun: "We employ acradle to grave collection approach . We employ an autodialer."

Moreover, Eldridge alleges that despite receiving numerouscomplaints alerting it to WFB's autodialing methods, Cabela's didnothing to halt the calls. Again, given that the Court must takeall well-pleaded factual allegations as true. Eldridge has pleadedsufficient facts to raise a reasonable inference that Cabela'sratified the conduct at issue.

Eldridge has satisfied this standard by pleading facts thatplausibly suggest an agency relationship between Cabela's and WFB.

Cabela's additionally argues that Eldridge lacks standing to suebecause he has not alleged any concrete injury that is fairlytraceable to any party's use of an ATDS or pre-recorded voicemessage.

Cabela's argues that even if Eldridge experienced the allegedinjuries, his claim fails because he cannot show that the use ofan ATDS or prerecorded voice caused him to incur a charge that hewould not have incurred had Cabela's manually dialed his number,which would not have violated the TCPA. This argument ignores thereason Congress enacted the TCPA in the first place. WhenCongress established the TCPA in 1991, it did so to protectconsumers from the nuisance, invasion of privacy, cost, andinconvenience that autodialed and pre-recorded calls generate.The arguments raised by Cabela's in support of its motion todismiss fail. The Court will therefore deny the motion to dismiss.

Cabela's also moves to strike three of the four putative classes:the two so-called Stop classes and the Autodialed No ConsentClass.

A defendant may move to strike class allegations even before aplaintiff has filed a motion for class certification.

Stop Classes

Eldridge's Autodialed Stop Class is defined as:

All persons in the United States from the last four years tothe present who (1) Cabela's (or a third person acting on behalfof Cabela's) called using an ATDS, (2) on the person's cellulartelephone number, (3) after the person informed Cabela's that s/heno longer wished to receive calls from Cabela's, and (4) for whomDefendant claims it obtained prior express consent in the samemanner as Defendant claims it supposedly obtained prior expressconsent to call the Plaintiff."

Even under Eldridge's interpretation, the Stop classes cannotsurvive the motion to strike. Section 227(b) does not distinguishbetween consumers who have requested to stop receiving calls andconsumers who never consented in the first place. Rather, the keydistinction is between those who have consented and those who havenot the latter group consisting of both consumers who neverconsented and consumers who revoked their previous consentAccordingly, Cabela's would be equally liable to those who havepassively not consented to receive calls and to those who havetaken affirmative steps to inform Cabela's they do not wish toreceive calls.

It is clear, then, that if Eldridge's Stop classes consist solelyof those persons who have taken such affirmative steps, they aresuperfluous in light of Eldridge's No Consent classes.3 In otherwords, Cabela's had no consent from those persons who told it tostop calling them. If the facts are as Eldridge has alleged, thesesame individuals are already included in the No Consent classes.The Stop classes are therefore redundant and should be stricken.

The Court will therefore strike from the complaint Eldridge's Stopclasses.

Autodialed No Consent Class

Eldridge's Autodialed No Consent Class is defined as:

All persons in the United States from the last four years tothe present who (1) Cabela's (or a third person acting on behalfof Cabela's) called using an ATDS, (2) on the person's cellulartelephone number, (3) for the purpose of selling Defendant'sproducts and services, and (4) for whom Defendant claims itobtained prior express consent in the same manner as Defendantclaims it supposedly obtained prior express consent to call thePlaintiff.

Cabela's argues that since this definition is limited to callsmade for the 'purpose of selling Defendant's products and servicesand since Eldridge claims to have received debt collection callsonly, Eldridge is not a typical class member. Ordinarily, Cabela'swould be correct. But Eldridge maintains that this problem is theresult of a drafting error.

The Court notes that Eldridge's Pre-recorded No Consent Classcontains no products and services language. Absent the productsand services language in the Autodialed No Consent Class, theAutodialed No Consent Class definition appears adequate.Accordingly, the Court will grant Eldridge fourteen days withinwhich to file an amended complaint in order to remedy the draftingerror.

Accordingly, the Court denied Cabela's motion to stay proceedings;granted in part and denied in part Cabela's motion to dismiss andto strike class allegations; and denied the motion to dismiss. Themotion to strike is denied without prejudice as to Eldridge'sAutodialed No Consent Class. The motion to strike is granted as toEldridge's Autodialed Stop Class and Pre-recorded Stop Class.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017Memorandum Opinion and Order is available athttp://tinyurl.com/y8kgrdm5from Leagle.com.

The report says that Delaware spends the eighth highest amount ofmoney per inmate -- $8,408 as of FY 2105 -- for medical servicesin the country. This is well below the top spender, California,which spent $19,796 per inmate in the same time period. Louisianaspent the least at $2,173 per head.

The 135-page report, using data collected from two 50-statesurveys administered by The Pew Charitable Trusts and the VeraInstitute of Justice, along with interviews with more than 75state officials, updates previous Pew research on spending trendsin prison healthcare.

The crux of the report, however, rested on how states defined andmonitored what sort of return on investment they were seeingrather than how much money they were spending.

According to the report, Delaware is one of 12 states lacking aprison healthcare quality monitoring system in place because it'snot required by legislation, executive order or regulation. Thereare no federal regulations to keep such a system in place.

Although the Delaware Department of Correction (DOC) has a"continuous quality improvement policy" and collects mortalitydata, it doesn't routinely share that or other "healthcarequality" data with the Legislature or public, claimed the report.

Twenty states (the majority) deliver healthcare services toinmates through a contracted third party. According to the DOC,their current medical provider is Connections Community SupportPrograms, Inc. (CCSP). They've held a four-year contract with theprison system since June 2014.

The Pew report said that as of 2016, Delaware's DOC was one ofonly five states that don't include "quality metrics" in theircontract requirements and one of 10 that don't include financialpenalties.

"Delaware may lack both some of the cost and quality informationwe think is required to build and maintain a high-performingprison healthcare system," said Maria Schiff, director of Pew'sStates' Health Care Spending Project. "It is certainly advisableto know how much money is being spent on what services and why,what benefits are achieved for those dollars and whether thesebenefits are preserved post-prison through well-coordinatedprison-to-community transitions. While the Delaware DOC does havecertain quality oversight pieces in place, other features weidentified as necessary are missing."

Ms. Schiff said the report's criteria for a sound prisonhealthcare monitoring system were:

* The system is overseen by one or more state agencies.

* The system is distinct from systems overseen by contractedvendors, though it may interact with them (e.g., incorporate oraudit data on particular measures that are collected by acontracted vendor).

* The system is applied to more than half of state prisonfacilities.

* More than half of the measures used across facilities areidentical.

The DOC feels the report mischaracterizes its quality assurancepractices.

"A lot of the survey questions were a simple yes or no," said DOCspokeswoman Jayme Gravell. "If our answer was no, because itdidn't fit exactly with what was asked, it doesn't mean that wedidn't have quality control measures in place."

Ms. Gravell pointed out several "controls" that she said ensuresthe DOC delivers quality healthcare services to inmates.

"We do actually provide a quarterly report to the General Assemblythat goes over all the services delivered and their costs," shesaid. "Every medical and mental health service provided toinmates is also included in a monthly report which is reviewed byour quality assurance administrator. Additionally, the DOC andCCSP meet for monthly continuous quality improvement meetings toreview data internally."

Ms. Gravell also pointed to the Adult Correctional HealthcareReview Committee (ACHRC), which consists of appointed healthcareprofessionals tasked with identifying, analyzing and correctingany problems that may impede quality.

"They provide us with a neutral, educated opinion on what we'redoing well, what needs improvement and steps to take to moveforward," she said.

The committee meets six times per year.

"Also, the DOC is accredited by the American CorrectionalAssociation (ACA) and National Commission on Correctional HealthCare (NCCHC)," added Ms. Gravell. "As part of the accreditationprocess, there is a comprehensive review of medical and behavioralhealth services to include interviewing of provider staff,correctional staff, bureau staff, inmates and in-depth chartreview. Our continuous quality improvement committee meetsregularly and addresses service provision, corrective action plansand the like."

The treatment provided to each inmate is individualized so thereis no scale or grading system to measure quality, Ms. Gravellsaid. In addition to the controls in place, each facility holdsmonthly Medical Advisory Committee (MAC) meetings to reviewhealthcare contracts to include medical, behavioral health, anddental. The MAC members consist of Connections staff and DOCstaff from the Bureau of Correctional Healthcare Services andBureau of Prisons.

Advocates' opinions

The speed and quality of DOC-provided healthcare has come underfrequent fire by prisoner advocates.

Dover attorney Stephen Hampton, of the law firm Grady & Hampton,LLC, said back in June that he'd been contacted by more than 230inmates through letters or family members since the Feb. 1 inmateuprising at James T. Vaughn Correctional Center that left Lt.Steven Floyd dead. He said complaints of inadequate healthcareincreased in the wake of the incident. Many inmates wererequesting a class action lawsuit be filed on their behalf.

As of Oct. 17, Mr. Hampton said that some of the poor prisonconditions have "eased up." But he still described the medicalcare as "abysmal."

"I am moving forward on civil claims for a large number ofinmates, but this involves thousands of pages of documentation andI have not filed anything yet," he said.

Lori Alberts, the chairman of Link of Love, said the DOC is moreinterested in cutting costs than providing the most basic medicalcare. Link of Love is a support group for inmates' families.

"Since as long as I can remember, the only thing that changes isthe name of the healthcare contractor," said Ms. Alberts. "One ofmy concerns is for the elderly, if a treatment is too costly, theyseem to just postpone it until the inmate dies. They have evencut chronic care back to only life and death situations. Physicaltherapists come in once or twice a month and by the time you getscheduled, whatever was broken has healed wrong and there isnothing that can be done."

Ms. Gravell said that family members and loved ones of inmates maycontact the DOC with questions about medical treatment, plans anddiagnoses. As long as the inmate provides written consent, the DOCwill share relevant healthcare information with the requester.

Admitting that healthcare can often be delayed when a specialistis needed, she notes that inmates are often limited byparticipating physicians' schedules.

"There are not a large number of specialists who've agreed to seeinmates," she said. "When we find a provide that does, there cansometimes be long waiting periods. Obviously, if the conditionsare dire and an inmate needs to go to the emergency room, we takethat route, but if not, we have to wait until an appointment witha specialist becomes available."

According to Ms. Gravell, the following is the number of inmateswho died of natural causes in the past four years:

2014 - 7 2015 - 14 2016 - 13 2017 - 1

The full Pew report can be seen atpewtrusts.org/correctionalhealth. [GN]

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group Inc. is an American soft drink company,based in Plano, Texas. Formerly called Cadbury Schweppes AmericasBeverages, on May 5, 2008, it was spun off from Britain's CadburySchweppes, with trading in its shares starting on May 7, 2008.[BN]

DUNBAR ARMORED: "Solis" Suit Moved to S.D. California-----------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit titled Robert Solis, on behalf of himselfand all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the generalpublic, the Plaintiff, v. Dunbar Armored, Inc. and DOES 1-100, theDefendant, Case No. 31-02017-00028098-CU-OE-CTL, was removed onOct. 26, 2017 from the Superior Court of California, San DiegoCounty, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District ofCalifornia (San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.3:17-cv-02193-DMS-JLB to the proceeding. The case is assigned tothe Hon. Judge Dana M. Sabraw.

EQUIFAX INC: Faces "Barone" Suit over Consumer Data Breach----------------------------------------------------------JOHN BARONE, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, v. EQUIFAX, INC., a Georgia corporation,the Defendant, Case No. 4:17-cv-05958-KAW (N.D. Cal., Oct. 17,2017), seeks to remedy damages as a result of Defendant'sviolation of state consumer protection laws and violation of statedata breach statutes.

On September 7, 2017, Equifax announced one of the largest andmost severe data breaches in history, admitting that the personaland/or confidential information of as many as 143 millionAmericans had been compromised or disclosed to unauthorized thirdparties between mid-May and July 2017. The information accessedincluded names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addressesand, in some instances, driver's license numbers (personallyidentifiable information ("PII")). In addition, credit cardnumbers for approximately 209,000 U.S. consumers, and certaindispute documents with PII for approximately 182,000 U.S.consumers, were accessed.

This is a consumer class action suit brought by Plaintiff,individually and on behalf all other similarly situated personswhose PII and credit account information was made accessible tothieves or other third parties after being entrusted to, and whilein the possession, custody, and control of, Defendant Equifax.This information is private and sensitive in nature, and Equifaxfailed to adequately protect it. Equifax did not obtain consent orpermission from Plaintiff or any of the Class members to disclosetheir PII, credit account, or other personal and confidentialinformation to any other person or entity, as would be requiredfor such disclosure by applicable law and industry standards priorto any such disclosure.

Equifax discovered the data breach in July 2017, but failed topublicly report it or otherwise alert those affected untilSeptember 7, 2017, when it finally issued a press release. In itspress release, Defendant Equifax failed (or refused) to provideany substantive information as to how the breach actuallyoccurred, choosing instead to attribute it to an unspecified"application vulnerability." Attempting to downplay itssignificance, Equifax Chairman and Chief Executive Officer RichardSmith dismissively described the Data Breach as "a disappointingevent for our company." The Data Breach is even more"disappointing" for those, including Plaintiff and the Classmembers, who are among the 143 million Americans who have hadtheir most sensitive PII and credit account information exposed byreason of Equifax's conduct in: (a) failing to adequately protectthat information; (b) failing to inform Plaintiff and the Classmembers that it did not have adequate systems or securityprocesses, protocols, or practices in place to safeguard thatinformation; (c) failing to prevent the Data Breach fromoccurring; (d) failing to mitigate the effects of the Data Bread;and (e) failing to provide timely notice of the Data Breach afterits occurrence.

Ultimately, Equifax intentionally, willfully, recklessly and/ornegligently failed to protect the PII and credit accountinformation of Plaintiff and the Class members from unauthorizeddisclosure. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class members have beendamaged and remain at substantial and continuing likelihood foridentity theft/fraud. Indeed, financial experts have opined thatvictims of a data breach are 9.5 times more likely to be a victimof identity fraud that are members of the general public. As adirect and proximate result of Equifax's intentional, willful,reckless and/or negligent acts and omissions, of its violation ofstate and federal statutes, and of the resulting Data Breach, over143 million individuals in the United States -- includingPlaintiff and the Class members -- have had their PII and creditaccount information exposed to fraud and identity theft, and havesuffered injuries.

Equifax Inc. is a consumer credit reporting agency. Equifaxcollects and aggregates information on over 800 million individualconsumers and more than 88 million businesses worldwide.[BN]

FCA US LLC: Williams Sues Over Denied Warranty for Jeep Defects---------------------------------------------------------------Jason Williams and James Jobe, on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant,Case No. 17-cv-00844 (W.D. Mo., October 6, 2017), seeks damagesand other relief under statutory or common law; attorney's feesand costs; prejudgment and post-judgment interest; declaratory,injunctive and equitable relief; and such other relief resultingfrom negligence, breach of express and implied warranties and inviolation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and MissouriMerchandising Practices Act.

Chrysler refuses to honor its warranty and cover the cost ofrepairing a manufacturing defect in the engines of Chrysler's JeepWrangler model years 2012-2017, says the complaint. Casting sandfrom the engine, radiators and oil coolers form a sludge-likeresidue that damages and ultimately destroys these and othercomponents.

Both Williams and Jobe purchased Jeep Wranglers. Its defroster andvents only emitted cold air and could not be adjusted by manualsettings. It was discovered that a sludge-like residue was foundin the radiator and oil cooler and had caused the problems byrestricting air flow through the cooling and heating system, notesthe complaint.

FCA US LLC is a limited liability company organized and existingunder the laws of the State of Delaware, and is wholly owned byholding company Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a Dutchcorporation headquartered in London, United Kingdom. FCA'sprincipal place of business and headquarters is in Auburn Hills,Michigan. [BN]

FORD MOTOR: Explorer Owners Await Decision on Settlement Appeal---------------------------------------------------------------David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that a FordExplorer class-action settlement was approved by a court a fewmonths ago, but the settlement was appealed by a Ford owner whoobjected to the settlement terms.

Affected Ford Explorer owners now wait for a decision from theEleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, so the settlement won't beeffective until the appeal is resolved.

The class-action lawsuit settlement includes all entities andconsumers in the U.S. who currently own or lease (or who in thepast owned or leased) a 2011-2015 Ford Explorer that was sold orleased in the U.S.

The class-action lawsuit has been a legal soap opera that startedin 2014 when Angela Sanchez-Knutson claimed her 2013 Explorerleaked exhaust odors into the cabin when the SUV was acceleratedhard and while the air conditioning was on recirculate.

The original class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of allFlorida 2011-2013 Explorer owners and lessees, but the suit waslater expanded to model years 2011-2015 on a nationwide basis.

The Florida court initially denied Ford's motion to dismiss, thengranted in part Ford's motion to dismiss Ms. Sanchez-Knutson'ssecond amended complaint. Following that, the judge granted inpart Ms. Sanchez-Knutson's motion for class-action certification,but denied in part Ford's motions and further ruled on otherpretrial motions.

The plaintiffs and Ford had two formal mediations and severalinformal ones. The final informal negotiation was less than 72hours before the trial was set to begin and the settlement waspreliminarily approved on November 21, 2016, but even that waslater amended.

As part of the preliminary approval, a total of 1,210,675 class-action notices were mailed to owners and lessees in March 2017,but at least three persons, represented by two sets of law firms,filed objections to the settlement and approximately 86 owners(representing 399 Ford Explorers) have opted out.

The events in Florida kicked off Ford Explorer exhaust lawsuitsjust about everywhere, including Ohio, Louisiana, California,New York, North Carolina, Texas and New Jersey. However, thosenever really made it anywhere, as can be seen in a suit filed inIllinois that was dismissed by the judge over a lack of evidence.

The approved settlement requires Ford to issue a technical servicebulletin (TSB) to update previous bulletins issued about Explorerexhaust odors. The TSB includes two service phases, one in whichdealers will recalibrate the air conditioning system and seal anygaps in the passenger compartments.

Secondly, if Ford and the dealer determines the air conditioningand sealing job didn't get rid of exhaust odors, additionalservices may be performed, including installation of a modifiedexhaust system. In addition, Ford may issue a future exhaust odorTSB that supersedes the current TSB, but the automaker is notrequired to do that.

Based on the settlement agreement in Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford MotorCompany, Explorer owners whose warranties have expired but who canprove they attempted to fix a diagnosed exhaust smell at anauthorized Ford dealer during the warranty period will be entitledto a subsidized post-warranty repair if they are stillexperiencing exhaust odors.

The maximum permitted reimbursement for this repair is $175 forthe first half of the TSB and $500 for the second half of the TSB.

Owners will have the later of 4 years/48,000 miles after theirvehicle was placed into service or 60 days beyond the effectivedate of the settlement to take their vehicles to an authorizedFord dealer for repair. The settlement provides reimbursement forup to two such repairs.

For Explorer owners and lessees who did not complain about exhaustsmells within warranty but who are now experiencing exhaust odorswill be entitled to a subsidized post-warranty repair with areimbursement capped at $175 for each of the two repairs describedin the TSB.

Owners will have the later of 60 days after the effective date ofsettlement or 60 days after the expiration of the warranty periodto get their SUVs to a Ford dealer for repair. The settlementprovides reimbursement for up to two such repairs.

But what if all of that still leaves owners with exhaust odors?Those who received an exhaust odor repair under warranty and arestill experiencing exhaust odors after the repairs will have theright to a free appellate procedure.

They will be eligible to present their claim before amediator/arbitrator selected by the Better Business Bureau andwill be entitled to request all of their unreimbursed TSB repaircosts at the BBB, or possibly a buyback of their Explorer.

As part of the settlement agreement, Ford has waived certainstatute of limitations defenses and its defense that the exhaustodor is allegedly caused by a design defect which is not coveredby its warranty.

Ford denies all allegations of wrongdoing but agreed to settle thelawsuit to put an end to expensive and time-consuming litigation.

Based on court documents, attorneys for the owners and lessees mayreceive up to $5 million in attorneys' fees and expenses.

As mentioned earlier, the settlement will not become effectiveuntil the appeal is fully resolve, so claim forms aren't yetavailable. Affected Explorer owners with questions may call 855-581-1279.

The Ford Explorer exhaust fumes lawsuit was filed in the U.S.District Court for the Southern District of Florida -- Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor Company.

The plaintiffs are represented by Jordan Lewis, P.A., and KelleyUustal PLC. [GN]

In January, O'Reilly paid a former Fox News analyst $32 million tosettle allegations of repeated harassment, including the sendingof sexually explicit material and a "nonconsensual sexualrelationship." That's according to a New York Times reportpublished on Oct. 22.

Mr. O'Reilly left Fox News in April after a different Timesinvestigation uncovered settlements with five women who hadaccused him of misconduct. They were reportedly paid a combinedtotal of about $13 million in exchange for their silence.

A sexual harassment lawyer told the Los Angeles Times the $32million payout is "tantamount to a class-action suit."

Fox News' parent company, 21st Century Fox, says it knew about thesettlement, but not how much it was worth. But knowing about thesettlement and still deciding to renew Mr. O'Reilly's contractisn't helping the company's attempts to clean up its image.

Others with the network have left under similar circumstances: CEORoger Ailes resigned just months before Mr. O'Reilly amid mountingsexual harassment allegations. And 21st Century Fox saidO'Reilly's most recent contract contained a clause that allowedthe company to fire him if more allegations came to light.

The company is also reportedly under federal investigation forpotentially misleading investors about payments related to sexualharassment cases, among other things.

Shumate was employed by Defendants as non-exempt, salaried, storemanager at their "Lids" Store located at Polaris Fashion Place,1500 Polaris Park, Columbus, Ohio 43240. Genesco, Inc., and is aretailer and wholesaler of stores engaged in selling headwear inretail stores in Ohio and across the United States. She claimsunpaid overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

According to the complaint, all the Class members were subject tothe same corporate practices of Defendants. The Class members andPlaintiff allege that Defendants failed to pay them overtimecompensation at the rate of one and one-half times the regularrate of pay for hours worked in excess of 40 per workweek, failedto pay them compensation for all hours worked, failed to reimbursethem for uniform expenses, improperly claiming a meal creditallowance, failed to pay spread-of-hours premium for each shiftexceeding 10 hours in duration, and failed to provide them wagenotice at the beginning of their employment and provide them wagestatements. The Plaintiff and other Class members sustainedsimilar losses, injuries and damages arising from the sameunlawful policies, practices and procedures.[BN]

According to the complaint, at least one year prior to the filingof this lawsuit, and continuing to the present, Defendants haveconsistently failed to provide Employees with timely, accurate,and itemized wage statements, in writing, as required byCalifornia wage-and-hour laws. The Defendants consistently failedto pay Employees' wages on a timely semi-monthly basis, asrequired by Labor Code and failed to pay all wages owed toEmployees at the time of their termination of within 72 hours oftheir resignation, as required by California wage-and-hourlaws.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Defendants often failed to pay"Commission Employees" overtime at the proper rate. Specifically,Defendants failed to include the separate hourly compensation forthe non-productive time associated with rest periods thatPlaintiff and the other "Commission Employees" were required totake when calculating Plaintiff and the other "CommissionEmployees" regular rate of pay used to calculate and payovertime.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Defendants required Plaintiffs,and other similarly situated employees, to work in excess of 40hours but failed to pay them at rates not less than one and one-half times the regular rates at which they were employed. TheDefendants paid Plaintiffs the same regular hourly rate for allhours worked over 40 in any given work week in a separate lineitem in the same paycheck. Utilizing a separate line item for allhours worked over 40 demonstrates Defendant's willful failure topay overtime compensation.[BN]

The court said, "This action is stayed pending mediation onDecember 7, 2017. The Parties are directed to notify the Court ofthe outcome of the mediation on or before December 14, 2017. TheClerk is directed to administratively close this case.

HOGAN TRANSPO: Fleet Managers Win Conditional Certification-----------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District ofOhio, Eastern Division, issued an Opinion and Order grantingPlaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification in the casecaptioned DON FAIRFAX, Plaintiff, v. HOGAN TRANSPORTATIONEQUIPMENT, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-680 (S.D.Ohio), and denying in part and granting in part Defendant's Motionto Strike.

Plaintiff has brought the present collective action pursuant tothe Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Ohio Minimum Fair WageStandards Act, Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4111 (Fair Wage Act).Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages from Hogan forall of Defendants' current or former Fleet Managers and otherdispatcher employees during the past three years before thisComplaint was filed to the present.

Plaintiff alleges that all Fleet Managers and other dispatcheremployees employed by Defendants perform the same general jobduties, are subject to the same wage and hour policies, and arenot paid overtime. Defendants oppose the Motion arguing primarilythat Plaintiff has failed to satisfy his minimal burden of proofin showing that others in the Putative Class are similarlysituated to him. In addition, Defendants oppose the scope of thePutative Class, the content of the Notice, and the manner in whichthe Notice will be distributed to Putative Class members.

Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification is granted.

Defendants argue that Plaintiff's proposed order is overbroad asto geographic scope, job title, and time. As to geographic scope,Defendants contend that there is insufficient admissible evidenceto support a nationwide class.

Plaintiff attached several exhibits to his Motion for ConditionalCertification that purport to show that other Hogan employees aresimilarly situated to Plaintiff. Defendants' primary basis forarguing against conditional certification is the insufficiency ofthe evidence presented by Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendantsclaim that job postings and personal LinkedIn profiles areunpersuasive to show that other Putative Class members aresimilarly situated, he has no personal knowledge of the primaryjob responsibilities of other Hogan Fleet Managers, andPlaintiff's allegations contained in his affidavit are underminedby his own deposition testimony in this case.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that evidence showing thatDefendants employ other people with the same job title asPlaintiff is relevant though not determinative to the question ofwhether other members of the putative class are similarly situatedto Plaintiff. The Court's position is strengthened by the factthat Defendants do not deny that all Fleet Managers wereclassified as salary exempt and were subject to the samecompensation structure.

The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the minute differences indaily job responsibilities are overemphasized by Defendants. Asstated earlier, Plaintiff must only make a modest factual showingthat his position is similar, not identical, to the positions heldby the putative class members. Plaintiff has made the modestfactual showing to the Court that Fleet Managers and possiblyother dispatcher employees shared the same primary job functionseven if their respective locations demanded unique or slightlydifferent responsibilities that were not demanded of Plaintiff inZanesville.

Therefore, there is testimonial evidence albeit somewhat vaguethat Plaintiff has spoken to other Fleet Managers about their jobsand his job in general. Nuanced differences in Fleet Managers'daily responsibilities are not sufficient to defeat conditionalcertification at this stage.

Plaintiff's affidavit states that he has personal knowledge, basedat least in part on conversations with other Fleet Managers anddispatcher employees, that the following is true of other HoganFleet Managers and dispatcher employees: (1) they have thesame/similar job duties as Plaintiff; (2) they were treated asexempt under the FLSA and were not paid time and a half for hoursworked over forty hours per week; (3) they are on call at allhours; and (4) they worked long hours outside of the office andwere paid a fixed salary that did not include overtime or straighttime for hours worked over forty hours per week.

Thus, Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification is granted.

Plaintiff has made the following request for expedited discoveryrelating to the Putative Class members: The Court should orderDefendants to produce the names, all known addresses, all phonenumbers, dates of birth, all known email addresses and dates ofemployment for all the Collective Class members employed at anytime during the three years preceding the granting of the Motionto the Present.

Defendants do not oppose any of these requests, with the exceptionthat they generally oppose sending the Notice by both regular andelectronic mail. For these reasons, Defendants' argument is well-taken and Defendants need not provide electronic mailing addressesto Plaintiffs.

The remainder of Plaintiff's unopposed requests for expediteddiscovery are granted.

Here, Plaintiff has made no attempt to show that there are anyfactual circumstances that would render service by ordinary mailonly ineffective. Accordingly, Plaintiff is only permitted to senda single notice to the Putative class with the exception that asecond mailing may be attempted if the first attempt is returnedundeliverable.

The parties have agreed to add a sentence to the Plaintiff'sproposed Notice indicating that defendant denies Plaintiff'sallegations in the underlying case. Further, Defendant does notobject to Plaintiff hiring a third party class actionadministration company if they deem appropriate or to a ninety dayopt-in period. The Court approves each of these requests.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/ybnus928from Leagle.com.

ILLINOIS: "Vasquez" Suit Moved to Central District of Illinois--------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit titled Anthony Vasquez, et al.,individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, thePetitioners, v. Warden Marvin Reed, Warden; Orr, Warden; andBurtle, Lt., et al., the Defendants, Case No. 1:17-cv-04051, wastransferred on Oct. 26, 2017 from the U.S. District Court for theNorthern District of Illinois, to the U.S. District Court for theCentral District of Illinois (Springfield). The Central DistrictCourt Clerk assigned Case No. 3:17-cv-03242-JES-JEH to theproceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Chief Judge James E.Shadid.[BN]

In particular, Family Medicine maintained that it had received anunsolicited "junk fax" advertising the commercial availability andqualities of Impax's epinephrine auto-injector device, inviolation of the TCPA's prohibition on transmission of unsolicitedadvertisements by facsimile machine, computer, or other device.

Plaintiff further alleged that this fax transmission violated theTCPA by failing to provide the recipient with a cost-freemechanism to opt out of receiving such transmissions in thefuture. By its terms, the TCPA provides for a private right ofaction, and authorizes recovery of the greater of actual damagesor statutory damages of $500, or up to treble that amount forwillful or knowing violations.

All individuals and/or entities who or which received one ormore unsolicited advertisements via facsimile from Defendantbetween December 1, 2013 and the date of entry of the PreliminaryApproval Order.

With respect to the Rule 23(a)(1) numerosity requirement, theparties have identified approximately 48,157 class members withinthe scope of the proposed class definition. That volume of classmembers is plainly so numerous that joinder of all members isimpracticable, so as to satisfy Rule 23(a)(1).

Family Medicine identifies as common issues of fact or law thefollowing, among others: whether Impax is subject to the TCPA,whether Impax's facsimile transmissions violated the TCPA, whetherthe subject faxes were informational or commercial in nature,whether class members consented to receive fax advertisements orwere in an established business relationship with Impax, andwhether class members are entitled to statutory damages andinjunctive relief. Under the circumstances, the Court agrees withplaintiff that Rule 23(a)(2) commonality has been adequatelyestablished.

The Rule 23(a)(3) typicality requirement turns on whether "theclaims or defenses of the class and the class representative arisefrom the same event or pattern or practice and are based on thesame legal theory."

Here, Family Medicine and all proposed class members are allegedto have been harmed in the same manner (i.e., receipt ofunsolicited junk faxes occupying their fax machines for a briefperiod of time) by the same course of conduct by the samedefendant in the same time period, with the same legal remedy(i.e., statutory damages for violation of the TCPA).

Family Medicine's claims appear unremarkable and faciallyindistinguishable from those of other putative class members;therefore, the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) issatisfied.

The last of the Rule 23(a) factors is found at Rule 23(a)(4),which imposes an adequacy of representation requirement. Thisadequacy of representation analysis encompasses two separateinquiries: (1) whether any substantial conflicts of interest existbetween the representatives and the class; and (2) whether therepresentatives will adequately prosecute the action.

Family Medicine has established a proven track record in this caseof prosecuting its claims vigorously, and there is no reason tobelieve it will not continue to do so on behalf of the classfollowing conditional certification. The same holds true forFamily Medicine's counsel of record, who are well qualified torepresent classwide interests here.

On this showing, the Court concludes that Family Medicine willfairly and adequately protect the interests of the class, asrequired by Rule 23(a).

In order to satisfy Rule 23(b)(3), the plaintiff must show (inaddition to the Rule 23(a) factors discussed previously) (1) thatcommon questions of law or fact predominate over questionsaffecting only individual class members (predominance); and (2)that a class action is superior to other available methods foradjudicating the controversy (superiority).

Here, the Court finds that common issues of law and factpredominate. Common fact questions include whether Impax sent thesubject faxes and whether those faxes were unsolicited. Commonlegal questions include whether Impax is subject to the TCPA andwhether the fax transmissions in question violate the TCPA.Resolution of those common questions will directly impact everyclass member's effort to establish liability and a right torelief.

Thus, Rule 23(b)(3) predominance is properly found here.Moreover, class treatment is superior to other available means ofadjudicating the controversy given the sheer volume of potentialclass members, the identity or near-identity of factual and legalissues implicated by their claims, and the administrativesimplicity of identifying and notifying potential class membersusing available fax records. Plaintiff has thus met its burden ofshowing that conditional certification is appropriate pursuant toRules 23(a) and 23(b)(3).

Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement

Terms of Settlement

The settlement contemplates that class members will receive cash,with defendant also contributing limited additional funds fornotice and claims administration. The cash component of thesettlement would entail Impax making a payment of $4,815,700 to bedistributed on a pro rata basis to those class members who submittimely claims, with such pro rata share not to exceed $500 percompensable fax.

Before distribution, this gross settlement fund will be reduced bythe following amounts: (i) a deduction for notice and claimsadministration costs in excess of $75,000; (ii) a deduction forclass counsel's attorney's fees and litigation expenses, up to amaximum of one-third of the gross settlement fund lessadministration costs; and (iii) a deduction for an incentive awardto the class representative, Family Medicine, of up to $20,000.Additionally, defendant would make a separate $75,000 paymenttoward notice and claims administration costs, with the remainingsuch costs to be deducted from the gross settlement fund.

Notice

Prior to final approval of a class action settlement, the courtmust direct notice in a reasonable manner to all class members whowould be bound by the proposal.

The Court is preliminarily satisfied that the proposed noticeconstitutes the best notice practicable under the circumstancesand that it comports with Rule 23 and due process. Notice byfacsimile transmission, which other federal courts have approvedin TCPA class action settlements, appears particularly appropriatehere, given that (i) all class members, by definition, receivedfacsimile transmissions from Impax during the relevant period;(ii) Impax and its agent have maintained records showing thefacsimile numbers to which such transmissions were sent; and (iii)it can be reasonably expected that businesses and individualschange their facsimile numbers infrequently.

Thus, the vast majority of class members should be reachable viathose same fax numbers to which the offending faxes giving rise totheir claims were sent. Presumably, as to most class members whosefax numbers have changed in the interim, the settlementadministrator's efforts to send faxed notice will result in failedtransmissions, thus prompting the administrator to locate validmailing addresses for them.

The Court perceives no obvious flaws in this notice plan;therefore, the Motion for Preliminary Approval is granted as toboth the manner and content of notice

INTUIT INC: Can Compel Arbitration of 4 Claims in TurboTax Suit---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia, San Jose Division, issued an Order grantingDefendant's Motion to Compel Arbitration in the case captionedCHRISTINE DIAZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. INTUIT, INC., Defendant,Case No. 5:15-cv-01778-EJD (N.D. Cal.).

In this putative class action suit, six individual Plaintiffsallege that Intuit knowingly allowed fraudsters to open fakeaccounts and file fraudulent federal and state tax returns throughIntuit's TurboTax tax preparation software. Intuit moves to compelfour of the named plaintiffs, Carol Knoch, James Lebinski, DavidStock, and Marilyn Williams, to arbitrate their claims pursuant tothe Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and to stay these Plaintiffs'cases pending resolution of their respective arbitrations.

Plaintiffs allege that they were the victims of SIRF fraud,meaning that Intuit allowed a fake TurboTax account to be openedin their names and allowed fraudulent tax returns to be filed fromthat account in their names. Plaintiffs assert claims for unfaircompetition, negligence, aiding and abetting fraud, negligentenablement of third party imposter fraud, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs Knoch, Lebinski, Stock and Williams agreed to theTurboTax online Terms of Service or the TurboTax desktop End UserLicense Agreement, both of which contain a dispute resolution andclass waiver provision.

The FAA provides that written agreements to arbitration disputesshall be valid, irrevocable and enforceable, save upon grounds asexist at law or equity for the revocation of any contract.

In the present case, the parties' dispute resolution agreementsexpressly provide that arbitration will be conducted by theAmerican Arbitration Association (AAA) before a single AAAarbitrator under the AAA's rules. Rule 14(a) of the AAA empowersthe arbitrator to rule on his or her own jurisdiction, includingany objections with respect to the existence, scope, or validityof the arbitration agreement or to the arbitrability of any claimor counterclaim. Virtually every circuit has determined thatincorporation of the AAA arbitration rules constitutes clear andunmistakable evidence that the parties agreed to arbitratearbitrability.

Despite the delegation to arbitrate arbitrability, Knoch,Lebinski, Stock and Williams next ask the Court to conduct alimited inquiry to determine whether the assertion ofarbitrability is wholly groundless.

In the present case, the arbitration clause is broad, applying to"ANY DISPUTE OR CLAIM RELATING IN ANY WAY TO THE SERVICES OR THISAGREEMENT." Therefore, the Court does not find that the assertionof arbitrability is "wholly groundless."

Accordingly, Intuit's motion to compel Plaintiffs Knoch, Lebinski,Stock and Williams to arbitration is granted, and their cases arestayed pending resolution of their respective arbitrations.

Plaintiff Brown was never a TurboTax customer; he never usedTurboTax, never provided Intuit with personally identifiableinformation or paid money to Intuit. Plaintiff Diaz purchased thedesktop version of TurboTax in 2011 and used it to e-file her taxyear 2010 Ohio state and federal tax returns. Since then, Diazhas not used TurboTax.

Both Plaintiffs allege that they were the victims of SIRF fraud,meaning that Intuit allowed a fake TurboTax account to be openedin their names and allowed fraudulent tax returns to be filed fromthat account in their names. Plaintiffs assert claims for unfaircompetition, negligence, aiding and abetting fraud, "negligentenablement of third party imposter fraud," and unjust enrichment.

Intuit moves to dismiss the two remaining Plaintiffs' claimspursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P.

Brown's Negligence Claim

The foreseeable factor weighs against imposing a duty with respectto Plaintiff Brown, who was not a TurboTax customer and neverprovided personal identifying information to Intuit. A third-partyfraudster obtained Brown's personal identifying informationelsewhere and used it to open TurboTax accounts and to filefraudulent returns in Brown's name. Brown has not alleged factsexplaining how Intuit could have or should have known that theaccount(s) opened in Brown's name were fraudulent.

Brown has not alleged suspicious circumstances or danger signalsthat would have or should have placed Intuit on notice that afraudster was opening a TurboTax account in his name. Therefore,Intuit's motion to dismiss Brown's negligence is granted withleave to amend.

Diaz's Negligence Claim

Intuit contends that Diaz's negligence claim is barred by theeconomic loss doctrine. Diaz contends that the economic lossdoctrine is inapplicable because her claim arises from conductoutside the scope of her contractual relationship with Intuit.The Court agrees.

Diaz's negligence claim, however, is not predicated on herinstallation, access or use of the licensed software. Instead, itis based upon Intuit's allegedly lax policies that allowed afraudster to open an entirely separate TurboTax account and tofile fraudulent returns in Diaz's name. Therefore, Intuit's motionto dismiss Diaz's negligence claim on the grounds that it isbarred by the economic loss doctrine is denied.

No California court has recognized a claim for negligentenablement of third party imposter fraud. Accordingly, the claimis dismissed with prejudice.

Aiding and Abetting Fraud

Liability may be imposed on one who aids and abets the commissionof an intentional tort if the person (a) knows the other's conductconstitutes a breach of duty and gives substantial assistance orencouragement to the other to so act or (b) gives substantialassistance to the other in accomplishing a tortious result and theperson's own conduct, separately considered, constitutes a breachof duty to the third person.

In this case, Plaintiffs allege that Intuit aided and abetting byfailing to implement adequate measures: to verify taxpayerinformation when an account is created or a return is filed; tonotify taxpayers and IRS and other taxing authorities of returnsthat were fraudulent or suspicious; or to timely report dataregarding suspicious filings to the IRS and state taxing agencies.In general, failure to act does not constitute substantialassistance for purposes of aiding and abetting liability

Accordingly, the aiding and abetting claim is dismissed with leaveto amend.

Violation of Unfair Competition Law (First Count)

Intuit seeks dismissal of the unfair competition claim, assertingthat Plaintiffs lack standing because they cannot show that theywere harmed as a result of the alleged unfair competition.

Plaintiffs contend that they have alleged both an economic injurythat confers UCL standing, as well as a violation of the UCL.Plaintiffs' allegations are nevertheless sufficient at thepleading stage. In particular, it is questionable whether anylegitimate policy considerations outweigh the gravity of harm thatwas allegedly caused by Intuit's policy of allowing tax refunds tobe directed to Intuit's affiliate Santa Barbara Bank, and thenessentially converted into non-traceable forms, such as pre-loadeddebit cards.

Plaintiffs also satisfy the tethering test. Plaintiffs allege thatIntuit's conduct violates California public policy, as reflectedin numerous statutes, regulations and common law that prohibitfraud and specifically fraudulent tax filings. Plaintiffs need notallege a direct violation of a statute to satisfy the tetheringtest.

Accordingly, Intuit's motion to dismiss the unfair competitionclaim is denied.

Unjust Enrichment (Fifth Count)

California recognizes unjust enrichment as a standalone claim forrestitution. Plaintiffs have alleged that Intuit has beenconferred benefits through an unfair business practice.Accordingly, Intuit's motion to dismiss the unjust enrichmentclaim is denied.

Intuit's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims is granted in partand denied in part.

IRELAND: In Violation of European Social Charter, ECSR Declares---------------------------------------------------------------Kitty Holland, writing for The Irish Times, reports that the humanrights of local-authority tenants in Ireland have been breached bylocal authorities' failure to provide adequate, clean and safehousing, the Strasbourg-based European Committee of Social Rights(ECSR) will declare.

Ina significant judgment that could affect hundreds of thousandsof people living in council homes, the ECSR will rule that Irelandis in violation of article 16 of the revised European SocialCharter.

Local authorities, the Council of Europe body will declare, havefailed to "ensure the right to housing of an adequate standard fora not insignificant number of families".

Article 16 of the charter recognises that "the family as afundamental unit of society has the right to appropriate social,legal and economic protection to ensure its full development".Included is the "provision of family housing".

The ruling comes more than three years after tenants of 20 localauthority estates took a class action, alleging that poor-qualityhousing was breaching their human rights.

Known as a "collective complaint", it was submitted to thecommittee by the Paris-based International Federation for HumanRights (FIDH) in July 2014, on behalf of the residents of estatesin Dublin, Cork and Limerick.

Adverse effects

Persistent damp, mould growing inside their homes, persistent badodours, poor plumbing, the emergence of raw sewage from pipes intotheir sinks and baths, and a lack of central heating, were havingadverse effects on their families' lives and breaching rightsincluding of the family and children to be protected againstpoverty and social exclusion, they alleged.

In addition, they had no independent body to which they couldcomplain about the conditions affecting them -- unlike privatetenants, who can appeal to the Residential Tenancies Board.Instead, local-authority tenants must complain to their owncouncil -- ie their landlord -- about conditions that were theresponsibility of the landlord to fix, in the first instance.

The ECSR committee said it had seen evidence of "sewage invasions,contaminated water, dampness, persistent mould" in the dwellingsthat raise serious concerns about habitability and the rights oftenants to services.

"It notes in particular the high number of residents in certainestates in Dublin complaining of sewage invasions . . . yearsafter the problems were first identified."

It says it has "repeatedly held that the right to housing forfamilies encompasses housing of an adequate standard" and thatadequate housing "must be habitable . . . providing theinhabitants with adequate space and protecting them from cold,damp, heat, rain, wind or other threats to health, structuralhazards ad disease vectors."

It also notes "no complete statistics on the condition of localauthority housing have been collected since 2002 by the Irishauthorities and that in Ireland no national timetable exists forthe refurbishment of local authority housing stock".

Government failings

In light of these findings, "the Committee finds that theGovernment has failed to take sufficient and timely measures toensure the right to housing of an adequate standard for a notinsignificant number of families living in local authority housingand therefore holds that there is a violation of article 16 of thecharter".

It found four other complaints, including the lack of anindependent complaints body for local-authority tenants, had notbeen proven to breach charter rights.

In a briefing note the committee says: "All member states areobliged to take steps to address any violations found by the ECSR.

"The Committee of Ministers will now discuss this decision with aview to adopting a formal resolution to the Irish authoritiesbased on the findings. The committee will follow up on a regularbasis to see what steps are being taken to address the problemsidentified".[GN]

JAY PEAK: Receivership Sought for Vermont EB-5 Regional Center--------------------------------------------------------------Anne Galloway, writing for VTDigger, reports that a group of EB-5investors has asked a superior court judge to put the Vermont EB-5Regional Center in receivership because the state has demonstratedthat it cannot protect investors.

The motion, filed on Oct. 20 in Lamoille County Superior Court,says the appointment of an independent receiver is "essential" forthe protection of defrauded investors in Jay Peak Resort who havenot yet received green cards and investors in other projects.

The state is claiming a sovereign immunity defense. TJ Donovan,the Vermont attorney general, who is defending the state agenciesand 10 former and current state officials named in the suit, hassaid state employees were acting in good faith and were simplycarrying out their duties.

The investors say the Vermont EB-5 Regional Center should bemanaged by a receiver because state officials have not takenresponsibility for their failure to prevent the fraud at Jay Peak.The plaintiffs allege that the center falsely claimed the projectswere audited by the state, actively promoted the projects to newpotential investors after state officials were made aware thatinvestor monies had been misused, and engaged in a coverup.

The investors say the state "directly sold" the Jay Peak projectsto investors by promising faster green card approvals, quarterlyreports and an assurance of compliance. Legal agreements betweenthe state and the developers that were given to investors includedguarantees that state officials would be responsible foroversight, management and compliance.

They cite an example of the state's alleged complicity in a newaffidavit from an EB-5 expert who claims that the state knew in2012 about kickbacks to Jay Peak immigration attorneys.

The motion is the latest twist in a class action case brought byinvestors against the state commerce agency, the Vermont EB-5center and state financial regulators for failing to protect themfrom the largest fraud in the history of the EB-5 program.

Barr Law Group of Stowe, which is representing the investors,argues that a receivership is the logical next step in light ofthe state's refusal to accept any obligation for oversight,management or administration of the Jay Peak projects and adecision by the federal government to close the Vermont center.The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service issued a notice oftermination in August, citing a "preponderance of the evidence"that state officials failed to properly monitor and manage the JayPeak projects for many years, effectively looking the other way asthe developers allegedly stole money from investors. The VermontDepartment of Financial Regulation put regulatory controls inplace in 2015 that officials say are sufficient to protectinvestors.

State officials, who were supposed to be overseeing the projectsand ensuring that investor funds were protected, deflected andignored questions about the finances at Jay Peak raised in 2012 byEB-5 experts, former business partners and investors, according todocuments in the public record. The director of the Vermont EB-5Regional Center questioned the motives of the people who raisedred flags and instead of investigating allegations of financialimproprieties, actively promoted the Jay Peak projects toinvestors, communications show.

Four years later, Jay Peak's former owner Ariel Quiros and formerCEO and president Bill Stenger were accused of using investorfunds to buy the resort. They then allegedly perpetrated a"Ponzi-like" scheme in which they used money from new investors tobackfill the cost of projects for previous investors. TheSecurities and Exchange Commission brought 52 counts of securitiesfraud against Messrs. Quiros and Stenger who are accused ofmisusing $200 million in investor funds in eight projects throughthe EB-5 program. The investments were meant for massiveimprovements at the Northeast Kingdom ski resort, another resortin the region and a biomedical facility. The projects are nowbeing managed through a receivership.

Green cards for about 400 out of about 900 investors have been injeopardy because of the fraud. Each foreign investor put up$500,000, plus an administrative fee, in the Jay Peak projects inexchange for U.S. residency.

The receivership motion features new allegations that the VermontEB-5 Regional Center promised investors fast-track approval forgreen cards. An official flier promoting the Vermont center asthe only state-run EB-5 program in the nation claims thatinvestors in Vermont projects "would be given priority" by U.S.Citizenship and Immigration Service. (In an email communicationobtained by Barr Law Group, USCIS said it did not givepreferential treatment to investors in the Vermont regionalcenter.)

The investors also cite an affidavit from an EB-5 expert who saysthere was "clear coordination" between Vermont EB-5 RegionalCenter and Jay Peak representatives.

Michael Gibson, an EB-5 analyst from Florida who has served onIIUSA, a trade association that sets ethical standards for the EB-5 industry, said at every EB-5 tradeshow or convention heattended, Jay Peak representatives shared a booth with VermontRegional Center officials, including former regional centerdirectors James Candido and Brent Raymond, commerce agencyattorney John Kessler and former commerce agency secretaryLawrence Miller.

From the booth, Jay Peak "packets" were distributed to immigrationlawyers. The packets included agreements for payouts to attorneyswho brought new investors to Jay Peak, Gibson says. One fill-in-the-blank form obtained by Barr Law Group featured a kickback of$25,000 for Shen Law.

Mr. Gibson says "there is no chance" that the Vermont RegionalCenter was not aware of the referral agreements, which gave JayPeak an "illegitimate" competitive edge over other EB-5 projectsaround the country "because the immigration lawyers who receivedthe financial incentive pushed investors to a project thatotherwise could not compete."

He also says that Jay Peak made representations in front of stateofficials to immigration lawyers and investors that the stateaudited the financials and operations at the resort.

The state auditing statements were a "pivotal" selling point, hesaid. Mr. Gibson said he had analyzed the business prospects ofJay Peak and found that "Jay Peak's projects and plans presentedalmost no chance of making money and producing a return on theenormous amount of capital being invested.

"However, to compensate for the foundational and obviousdeficiencies in its business model, Jay Peak provided assurancesto its investors by claiming that their promises of profit werebacked up and audited by the State run Vermont Regional Center,"Mr. Gibson said.

Mr. Gibson raised concerns about the kickbacks, Jay Peak'sbusiness outlook and coordination between state officials and theEB-5 developers they were supposed to be monitoring. He sent aseries of emails in 2012 to Kessler and John Cronin, the formerhead of the securities division of the Vermont Department ofFinancial Regulation, alleging that Jay Peak was "systematicallyengaged in unauthorized unlicensed broker-dealer conduct." Hisquestions were ignored.

"It was obvious then that the Jay Peak projects represented agravy train of travel, opportunity, lucrative fees, andopportunity," Mr. Gibson said. "Everyone at the booth, andeveryone who received one of those packets wanted to ride thegravy train, but no one wanted to hear anything that I had tosay."

Investors say the receivership is necessary because the state hasnot owned up to its role in the fraud and several key stateofficials who were present when the fraud at Jay Peak occurredremain involved in the state's EB-5 program.

Gov. Phil Scott and the Vermont Department of Financial Regulationhave proposed that the state retain control of the center as it"winds down" over the course of a decade.

That's unacceptable to the investors suing the state. They agreethe center should be closed down over time, but they believe thatfrom here on out the state's EB-5 program should be run by anoutside, independent securities firm in order to show USCIS thatthe regional center can comply with EB-5 laws and regulations. A"premature" termination by USCIS, they argue, would hurt innocentinvestors in other projects and "erode the public trust inVermont's government and expose the State to further liability."[GN]

KATZKIN LEATHER: Medina Seeks Unpaid Wages under Labor Code-----------------------------------------------------------SILVIA MEDINA, individually and on behalf of all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, v. KATZKIN LEATHER, INC., a Delawarecorporation; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, the Defendant, CaseNo. BC680102 (Cal. Super. Ct., Oct. 16, 2017), seeks to recovermonetary relief against Defendants on behalf of herself and allothers similarly situated in California to recover, among otherthings, unpaid wages and benefits, interest, attorneys' fees,costs and expenses, and penalties pursuant to the California LaborCode.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have increased theirprofits by violating state wage and hour laws by, among otherthings: failing to pay all wages (including minimum wages andovertime wages); failing to provide lawful meal periods orcompensation; failing to authorize or permit lawful rest breaks orprovide compensation; failing to provide accurate itemized wagestatements; and failing to pay all wages due upon separation ofemployment.

This case concerns Life Time's practice of collecting, capturing,storing and using Plaintiffs and other employees' biometricidentifiers and biometric information without regard to theregulations imposed by BIPA and the concrete privacy rights andpecuniary interests that BIPA protects.

Life Time, Inc. is a chain of health clubs in the United Statesand Canada. Many of its facilities operate 24/7 and featurepersonal trainers, salons, food courts, child care centers, andindoor/outdoor pools.[BN]

LYNN DONUTS: Moran Sues over Butter Substitute in Baked Products----------------------------------------------------------------The case, PAUL MORAN, on behalf of himself and all otherssimilarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. LYNN DONUTS, INC., theDefendant, Case No. 2017CV6000 (S.D. Fla., Oct. 17, 2017), allegesthat Lynn Donuts has engaged in a scheme whereby the Company,through its Dunkin' Donuts locations in the Commonwealth,knowingly and habitually deceives its customers by supplyingmargarine (or a butter substitute) when customers specificallyrequest butter and are charged for butter on their bagels or otherbaked good products.[BN]

Andrew Davis brings this action as a collective action under theFLSA and a class action under the Connecticut Minimum Wage Actagainst the Defendant for the misclassification of employees withthe title of Department Manager as exempt from overtime pay, andthe consequent failure to pay those workers at time and one-halftheir hourly rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

MAGMA DESIGN: Nat'l Union Wins Summary Judgment in Insurance Suit-----------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District ofCalifornia, San Jose, issued an Order granting National Union'sMotion for Summary Judgment in the case captioned DivisionGENESIS INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. MAGMA DESIGN AUTOMATION,INC., Defendant, Case No. 5:06-cv-05526-EJD (N.D. Cal.). Themotion for relief from non-dispositive pre-trial order of themagistrate judge is denied as moot.

Presently before the court is National Union's motion for summaryjudgment on Magma's cross-claims for breach of contract and breachof the covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Synopsys, Inc., filed an action against Magma alleging patentinfringement, which Executive Risk Indemnity, Inc. (ERII) acceptedas a notice of circumstances arising under its 2003-04 policy.Genesis, however, declined to accept the Synopsys action as anotice of circumstances under its first-layer excess coverage.

Two of Magma's cross-claims against National Union remain at issueafter rulings by the District court and the Ninth Circuit, and arethe subjects of the current motion. The first asserts breach ofcontract, through which Magma alleges that National Union hasimproperly denied coverage and repudiated its obligations underthe National Union policy by, among other things, asserting itsPrior Notice exclusion as a bar to coverage, claiming that theERII 04/06 Policy is not exhausted, raising other improper andunfounded defenses to coverage, and refusing to reimburse Genesisthe $5 million Genesis paid towards the settlement of theUnderlying Policies.

For its first crossclaim, Magma must prove the standard elementsfor breach of contract because while insurance contracts havespecial features, they are still contracts. Those elements are:(1) the contract, (2) plaintiff's performance or excuse for non-performance, (3) defendant's breach, and (4) damage to plaintiffthere-from.

But where benefits are withheld for proper cause, there is nobreach of the implied covenant. This means that without a viablebreach of contract claim against the insurer, an insured's causeof action for breach of the implied covenant of good faith andfair dealing will fail as a matter of law.

A standard insurance policy generally imposes two duties on aninsurer: a duty to indemnify the insured, and a duty to defend theinsured. A description of the differences between these dutieshelps to place Magma's cross-claims in the correct context.

Magma's policy with National Union was a D&O policy. There isgenerally no duty to defend clause in a D&O policy, but only aduty to indemnify.. Thus, rather than the insurer providing andpaying for a defense to the insured in real time, defense costsare defined as part of Damages' for which indemnification is to bepaid. The insurer reimburses defense expenditures only after theinsured selects counsel, controls the defense, and submits thedefense bill. Stated differently, the liability limits of a D&Opolicy are inclusive of and depleted by the reimbursement ofdefense costs.

National Union argues the court should enter judgment in its favorbecause Magma cannot prove it suffered damages from the allegedbreach of contract. Since Magma would bear the evidentiary burdenon its claim, National Union need only point out a failure ofevidence on the elements. If it does so, Magma must then sustainthe burden of production.

Damages are a necessary element of the breach of contract cause ofaction. In turn, a breach of contract without damage is notactionable.

Magma has not produced any evidence to show that National Unionassumed the risk for these fees and costs at the time of contractformation, or that the nature of the policy or the circumstancesin which it was made compel the inference that [National Union]should have contemplated reimbursing Magma's fees and costs forits litigation with another insurer.

But even putting aside the absence of evidence demonstratingNational Union's awareness or contemplation at the time ofcontract formation, Magma's ability to recover these fees andcosts as damages for the breach of a D&O policy faces a morefundamental problem. As explained, a D&O policy obligates aninsurer with a duty to indemnify not a duty to defend arisingonly when liability for a claim covered under the policy isestablished.

Here, no matter how understandably frustrating the circumstanceswere to Magma, a reasonable jury could not find that a claimcovered by the National Union policy was established at the timeMagma incurred defense fees and costs. It was not until 2017, whenthe Ninth Circuit ruled on the third appeal, that National Union'sliability to indemnify Magma was, in fact, established. Only thencould ERII adjust its records to reflect exhaustion of the 2004-06policy, thereby triggering National Union's first-layer excesscoverage.

And under the plain terms of the National Union policy, exhaustionof ERII's 2004-06 policy was a necessary precursor to any claimfalling within its period of excess coverage. Thus, there was in2010 a genuine issue as to National Union's liability under thepolicy for the underlying actions, and "there can be no bad faithliability imposed on the insurer for advancing its side of thatdispute.

In sum, the court concludes that Magma failed to bear its burdenin opposing National Union's motion for summary judgment. Evenwhen viewing the mostly undisputed record in the light mostfavorable to Magma, a reasonable jury could not find that Magmasustained any damages as a result of the breach of contractalleged in its crossclaim. Accordingly, National Union's motionwill be granted as to the cross-claim.

Magma's cross-claim against National Union for breach of thecovenant of good faith and fair dealing cannot be maintained as amatter of law without a viable claim for breach of contract.Summary judgment will also be entered as to this cross-claim.

MCDONALDS: Tel Aviv Court Allows Labor Class Action to Proceed--------------------------------------------------------------Jasmin Gueta, writing for Haaretz, reports that the vice presidentof the Tel Aviv Labor Court described McDonald's treatment of itsworkers in Israel "borders on ignorance of worker rights, if notcruelty." Ariela Gilzer-Katz made the statement in approving therequest to hear a class action that claims the chain doesn't letemployees sit during shifts, among other offenses.

The decision allows the suit against McDonald's Israeli franchise,held by Aloniel, to go ahead. The plaintiffs seek 35 millionshekels ($10 million) in damages.

"McDonald's treatment of its workers borders on insensitivity toworkers' rights, if not cruelty," Ms. Gilzer-Katz said.

"McDonald's wasn't inclined to give workers a place to sit whileon the job. Each worker is entitled to a chair, and the refusalto offer any chairs at all is evidence of this ignorance."

The court took note of a sign hanging at the chain's Tel Hashomerbranch that states, "Each worker must stand at his workspace!Cashier -- only at the cash register, and do not move, face thecustomer and look for customers who have not ordered. Baker --prepare orders and take care of customers who have finishedordering." This reveals McDonald's attitude toward its workers,noted the judge.

It has been proved to the court that McDonald's employees may notsit while working, and workers should be given the choice ofsitting while taking orders and processing payments, she wrote.McDonald's offer of chairs in a back room does not meet legalobligations, she added.

The suit was filed by three employees of its Neve Savion outlet.It includes additional allegations, including that McDonald'sdidn't pay vacation days, pension, or holiday payments.

McDonald's argued that restaurants are not obliged to pay thesesocial benefits, but the court found otherwise.

"We received the impression that McDonald's violated the lawmandating that workers can sit on the job, and did not paymandatory benefits," stated the court.

The suit names as beneficiaries all McDonald's employees as of thedate it was accepted as a class action. It calls for 2.1 millionshekels in compensation for unpaid vacation days, 22.6 millionshekels for unpaid pension contributions, and 5.8 million shekelsfor unpaid holiday payments.

At this stage of the suit, McDonald's will be charged 110,000shekels in court and legal fees.

McDonald's argued in its defense that it signed an agreement in2008 with the Histadrut labor federation stating that it wouldplace one chair in a back room for workers, and as many as threechairs for branches with 15 workers or more. The judge counteredthat the Histadrut did not represent the workers at the time, andthat it had not been proved that even this agreement was enforced.

McDonald's stated in response that the court had merely acceptedthe petition to hear a class-action suit, and nothing more. T hecompany believes that even this is erroneous and disproportionate,and intends to appeal, it stated.

"We hope that the ultimate court ruling will reject thisridiculous suit, because if not, the entire restaurant industryand other industries will be forced to retroactively pay billionof shekels," it stated. [GN]

According to the complaint, FLSA Collective Action Members aresimilarly situated because they were subjected to the samepolicies, terms and conditions of employment by Defendant, weredenied complete and/or prompt payment for hours worked pursuant toa common policy and/or practice by Defendant, and have not beencompensated for all hours worked pursuant to a common policyand/or practice of Defendant.

Mec Development was founded in 2006. The company's line ofbusiness includes providing help supply and personnel supplyservices.[BN]

This class action claim protects all Indiana-based employees ofMenard, Inc., including those who work or worked for Menard, Inc.at one of its Indiana retail locations, who work or worked forMenard, Inc. at its Terre Haute, Indiana Midwest Manufacturingfacility, and/or who work or worked for Menard, Inc. at itsIndiana distribution facility.

Edwards will serve as class representative of current and formerIndiana-based employees of Menard, Inc. who were victims ofMenard, Inc.'s class-wide wage violations. Specifically, Menard,Inc. is and has been taking illegal wage deductions from itsemployees' pay checks in such a manner that every deductionviolates the mandatory requirements of the Indiana Wage AssignmentStatute. These deductions which violate the Indiana WageAssignment Statute, result every time in the underpayment ofwages, creating violations of the Indiana Wage Payment Statute.Edwards' class action claim based upon Menard, Inc.'s illegal wagedeductions is perfect for class treatment and will be easy toprove. All of Menard, Inc.'s wage violations will be shown on theface of its pay stubs to employees, which show every illegal wagededuction taken from every Indiana-based employee.[BN]

Defendants MDE and FCS move to dismiss the complaint under Rules12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). On a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, theCourt must assume the veracity of [the plaintiff's] well-pleadedfactual allegations and determine whether the plaintiff isentitled to legal relief as a matter of law. To survive a motionto dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, thecomplaint must contain a short and plain statement of the claimshowing that the pleader is entitled to relief.

Defendant FCS brings a Motion to Dismiss on the basis of failureto exhaust, asserting there is no case or controversy regardinghearing, vision, or lead blood screenings that are alreadyprovided through the public health department; and that there isnot a valid claim for universal preschool.

In this case, Plaintiffs seek systemic change within the SchoolDistrict's policies to ensure compliance with state and federallaw. The complaint alleges four systemic violations: failure todevelop and implement child find procedures; failure to provide afree appropriate public education that confers a meaningfuleducational benefit in the least restrictive environment; failureto protect students' procedural due process protections in thedisciplinary process; and discrimination on the basis ofdisability with accompanying denial of access to educationalservices.

Defendants also fail to demonstrate how the record of theadministrative proceedings would benefit the Court in this case,yet another factor favoring a decision that these claims fallunder the systemic exception to the exhaustion requirement. At thehearing, Defendant FCS conferred with individuals that were in theCourtroom, including the distributor of learning support services,and indicated that there have been two students who taken upadministrative appeals. This does not support an argument thatexhaustion is readily available, or that the system is functioningproperly, and instead points to systematic problems given thefacts alleged in the complaint surrounding the representativePlaintiffs and the high percentage of children in FCS qualifyingunder IDEA for IEPs.

It is clear from Plaintiffs' complaint that the remedy they areseeking is a systemic change in the very way that Defendantsidentify, place, and educate all children in the Flint SchoolDistrict. The relief they are seeking is plainly not individualand could not be remedied by individual exhaustion sincePlaintiffs are challenging the very efficacy of the systememployed within the Flint District. Further, the representativePlaintiffs have emphatically illustrated that the allegedviolations are widespread across the Flint schools and repetitivein nature. Thus, these systemic violations cannot be adequatelyexhausted through the administrative procedure and the systemicviolation exception applies.

Defendant MDE argues that, as against MDE, Plaintiffs cannotestablish an injury in fact, causation, or redressability. First,Defendant MDE argues that the claims asserted against it, i.e.that they failed to provide the appropriate monitoring, oversight,resources, and expertise required to help the local Defendantscomply with the IDEA, are merely procedural and therefore notactionable under the IDEA.

Plaintiffs are not required to show that a favorable decision willcorrect all of the injuries alleged, but rather, that a favorabledecision is likely to establish at least a partial redress. Therequested relief seeks an order requiring MDE to fulfill itsobligations to identify and evaluate all children requiringspecial education through enhanced screening processes, and toprovide them with a FAPE, ensuring that IEPs are implemented, anddeveloping effective training and systems to ensure properdisciplinary procedures.

It is clear that a favorable ruling on these claims would provideat least a partial redress to the injuries alleged. Moreover,since the local Defendants are parties to this case, there is noargument that other actors, not before the Court, would affectredressability. As for the parents, they have joined in thelawsuit, and there is no reason to believe that their presencewould hinder redressability either.

Defendants also argue that Plaintiffs lack standing for theSection 504 and ADA claims because they have failed to allege aninjury under these acts, as not every proposed member of the classis necessarily disabled and eligible for services under the ADA orSection 504. It is asserted that this hypothetical injury is notsufficient to establish standing.

However, this argument ignores the many class members who arecurrently disabled. There is no argument requiring a finding of alack of standing for these Plaintiffs, and Defendant does notaddress this argument in its reply. Considering the above,Plaintiffs have standing to bring the IDEA, ADA, and Section 504claims against Defendant MDE.

Defendant MDE argues that it has Eleventh Amendment immunity as tothe ADA claim. Congress has expressed an unequivocal desire toabrogate Eleventh Amendment immunity for violations of the ADA.Defendants have offered no binding or persuasive authority inwhich a court has held that state immunity is not abrogated in thecontext of public education. Rather, they proffer a case in whichthe Court found that there was not a valid ADA claim stated, andended its analysis there. As a result, the court did not rule onthe issue of whether the Eleventh Amendment barred Title IIclaims. Therefore, the Court is not persuaded to disregard thesignificant case law abrogating 11th Amendment immunity in thecases concerning public education.

Accordingly, 11th Amendment immunity does not apply to Plaintiffs'ADA claim.

Defendants MDE and GISD first argue that Plaintiffs have notstated a valid IDEA claim, asserting first that they have failedto exhaust their claims, while also arguing that the claims aretoo vague, merely containing broad, conclusory allegations.Plaintiffs further assert that: GSID failed to address sensory andbehavioral needs of students in GISD-run schools; failed toprovide special education services and evaluation for studentswith disabilities even when frequently prompted by concernedparents; failed to apprise parents of contemplated behaviorcontrolling techniques nor sought their permission for suchactions; failed to assess the extent of lead exposure whenconducting re-evaluations; failed to screen and issue timelyreferrals pursuant to IDEA's child-find requirements; failed toprovide procedural safeguards for students with disabilities;engaged in a pattern of unduly harsh disciplinary measures,including physical restraints and seclusion techniques inviolation of IDEA; failed to provide students with disabilitiesthe same variety of programs and services offered to non-disabledstudents; and failed to provide a FAPE to Plaintiffs and similarlysituated students with disabilities.

These specific allegations put Defendants on notice as to thefactual basis for the complaint and satisfies the 12(b)(6)standard.

Defendant MDE argues that Plaintiffs have not alleged Title II ADAand Section 504 claims because: some of the class members are notdisabled; there is only a disagreement over the level of servicesprovided, not a denial of access; and there is no discriminatoryanimus plead, which is fatal under Title II.

It is undisputed that there are disabled Plaintiffs. Plaintiffsalso allege that children are not being properly assessed andevaluated, so they may well be able to establish that even moreare disabled. Again, Defendants fail to show why the fact thatsome of the class members may not be disabled should cause theentire claim to be dismissed.

Defendants are correct that a mere failure to provide the FAPE asrequired by the IDEA is insufficient to support a Section 504 orTitle II ADA claim. However, Plaintiffs have challenged MDE'sprofessional judgment in oversight of the FCS, and the allocationof necessary resources, and asserted that this has causeddiscriminatory effects. Whether this judgment rises to the levelof gross misjudgment, to qualify as discriminatory, is a questionof fact that needs to be developed and brought before a trier offact to determine. Therefore, as a threshold matter, Plaintiffshave stated a valid claim under Section 504 and the ADA.

Accordingly, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofMichigan ordered that Defendant MDE's Motion to Dismiss andDefendant GISD's Motion for Judgment are denied.

The Court further ordered that Defendant FCS's Motion to Dismissis granted in part as to Defendant's request to dismiss the claimfor universal preschool and denied in part as to the remainder ofDefendant FCS's Motion to Dismiss.

MYHOMECENTERS.NET: Menichiello Sues over Do-Not-Call Registry-------------------------------------------------------------DENISE MENICHIELLO, individually and on behalf of all otherssimilarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. MYHOMECENTERS.NET DBA TOPCONSTRUCTION, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, and each of them,the Defendant Case No. 8:17-cv-01793-AG-DFM (C.D. Cal., Oct. 13,2017), seeks to recover damages and any other available legal orequitable remedies resulting from the illegal actions of theDefendant, in negligently, knowingly, and/or willfully contactingPlaintiff on Plaintiff's home telephone in violation of theTelephone Consumer Protection Act and related regulations,specifically the National Do-Not-Call provisions, thereby invadingPlaintiff's privacy.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff did not have an establishedbusiness relationship with Defendant during the time of thesolicitation calls from Defendant. Plaintiff did not giveDefendant prior express written consent for Defendant to callPlaintiff's home telephone for marketing or solicitation purposes.Despite this, Defendant continued to call Plaintiff in an attemptto solicit its services and in violation of the National Do-Not-Call provisions of the TCPA thus violating Plaintiffs privacy.[BN]

NATIONAL GENERAL: "Jacob" Suit Transferred to C.D. California-------------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit captioned as KATHERINE JACOB,Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, thePlaintiff, v. NATIONAL GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY and WELLS FARGOBANK, N.A., D/B/A WELLS FARGO DEALER SERVICES, the Defendants,Case No. 1:17-cv-05806, was transferred on Oct. 26, 2017 from theUnited States District Court for Southern District of New York, tothe United States District Court for the Central District ofCalifornia (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central DistrictCourt Clerk assigned Case No. 8:17-cv-01816-AG-KES. The case isassigned to the Hon. Judge Andrew J. Guilford.

The case seeks to recover damages as a result of Wells Fargo andNational General scheme to steal hundreds millions of dollars fromunsuspecting automobile purchasers by foisting on them unwantedand unneeded automobile insurance costs.

Plaintiff has brought a putative class action pursuant to theTelephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA), as amended by the JunkFax Prevention Act of 2005, 47 U.S.C. Section 227 (TCPA). Cooperclaims that NeilMed has sent unsolicited advertisements to Cooperand the class via facsimile in violation of the TCPA.

NeilMed moves to dismiss Cooper's Complaint pursuant to FederalRule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) based on the failure to state aclaim upon which relief can be granted.

The Court must determine whether NeilMed's fax offering itsproducts for free constitutes advertising because it is anindirect commercial solicitation or a pretext for a commercialsolicitation. The fax calls attention to the quality of NeilMed'sproducts. The fax states that NeilMed(C) Sinus Rinse(C) andNeilmed(C) Baby Care, Ear Care, and First Aid devices have becomean acceptable line of treatment for various self care for simpleailments. NeilMed's products are generally commerciallyavailable. NeilMed's website, which is listed in the fax, sellsits products directly and also provides a store locator to findstores who carry NeilMed's products. From that standpoint,NelMed's fax is commercial in nature. While NeilMed is notsoliciting business from Cooper, the fact that the recipient ofthe fax is not the one paying for the product does not make theproposed transaction non-commercial.

The Court notes that in Sandusky Wellness Ctr., LLC v. MedcoHealth Sols., Inc., 788 F.3d 218, 222, the Sixth Circuit cautionedthat the fact that the sender might gain an ancillary, remote, andhypothetical economic benefit later on does not convert anoncommercial, informational communication into a commercialsolicitation. Certainly there is no guarantee that Cooper'spatients will purchase NeilMed's products after being handed afree sample, the Court said. However, the fax from NeilMed doesnot resemble the kinds of faxes that have been deemed merelyinformational.

As the FCC has explained, "facsimile communications that containonly information, such as industry news articles, legislativeupdates, or employee benefit information, would not be prohibitedby the TCPA rules."

Here, the fax from NeilMed is not providing any medicalinformation, industry news, or like the fax in Sandusky, benefitsavailable to patients. Instead, the fax promotes the sale of itsproducts to Cooper's patients, albeit indirectly, by passing onfree samples through Cooper. Therefore, the Court concludes thatthe complaint states a plausible claim that Defendant's faxqualifies as an advertisement.

A full-text copy of the District Court's September 29, 2017Opinion and Order is available at http://tinyurl.com/y8rrchc8from Leagle.com.

The Buffalo Jills was the name of a cheerleading squad thatperformed at professional football games for defendant BuffaloBills, Inc. (Buffalo Bills), and also participated in charity andpromotional events in the community. Plaintiffs are four personswho were members of the Buffalo Jills for varying periods.Plaintiffs commenced the action, individually and on behalf ofsimilarly situated persons, seeking to recover hundreds of hoursof wages that allegedly were not paid to them.

In their third amended and supplemental class action complaint,plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that they weredeliberately misclassified as independent contractors rather thanemployees, and were made to sign similarly worded contractsmisrepresenting them as such. The complaint asserts causes ofaction based upon, among other things, violations of the Labor Lawand common-law fraud.

Plaintiffs subsequently moved for class certification.

The Appellate Division concluded that Supreme Court properlygranted the motion and certified the class. Contrary to theinitial contention of the National Football League, the BuffaloBills, and Cumulus Radio Company, formerly known as CitadelBroadcasting Company, the court properly considered the evidencethat plaintiffs submitted with their reply papers. Although it isgenerally improper for a moving party to submit evidence for thefirst time with its reply papers, the court may consider suchevidence where the opposing party has the opportunity to submit asurreply. Here, the parties had the opportunity to submitsurreply papers and, indeed, the Buffalo Bills' attorney submitteda thorough surreply affirmation responding to the evidence inplaintiffs' reply papers.

The Appellate Division rejected defendants' further contentionthat plaintiffs failed to meet the five requirements of CPLR 901(a).

The first prerequisite is that the class must be so numerous thatjoinder of all of its members is impracticable. Here, the BuffaloBills admit that the class has approximately 134 members, andclasses of 53 to 500 members have been deemed well above thenumerosity threshold contemplated by the legislature and approvedby courts.

The second prerequisite is that there are common questions of lawor fact that predominate over questions affecting only individualmembers. Here, the common questions include whether the putativeclass members were employees or independent contractors andwhether defendants failed to pay them in accordance with the law,and the Appellate Division concluded that those questionspredominate over individual questions of damages.

The third prerequisite is that the class representatives' claimsare typical of the claims of the class. Plaintiffs' replyaffidavits and the documents attached thereto establish that theywere subject to the same treatment during the 2009-2010, 2012-2013, and 2013-2014 seasons. The Appellate Division thusconcluded that the third prerequisite is met because plaintiffsestablished that the claims of the class representatives arose outof the same course of conduct and are based on the same theoriesas the other class members.

The fourth prerequisite is that the class representatives willfairly and adequately protect the interest of the class. Here,plaintiffs averred in their reply affidavits that they have noconflicts of interest with any of the putative class members andthat they are committed to prosecuting the case to its conclusion.Although, as defendants note, plaintiffs have waived their rightto liquidated damages, that does not preclude class actioninasmuch as putative class members who wish to pursue such damagesmay opt out of the class action and pursue them individually.

The fifth prerequisite is that class action is the superior methodto fairly and efficiently adjudicate the controversy.The Appellate Division concluded that this is a case where thecost of prosecuting individual actions would deprive many of theputative class members of their day in court. Although twoputative class members have already elected to pursue their claimsindividually, the record demonstrates that those class membersworked for the Buffalo Jills for a longer period of time and mademore personal appearances, which arguably entitles them to damagesseveral times greater than the damages sought by other classmembers.

Thus, the fact that two putative class members exercised theirright to pursue individual remedies does not controvertplaintiffs' position that class action is the superior vehicle foradjudicating the claims herein.

NIGERIA: Class Action Mulled Over Monies Not Linked to BVN----------------------------------------------------------Obinna Chima, writing for This Day, reports that there wasdisquiet in the banking sector at the weekend following a FederalHigh Court ex parte order in Abuja that all monies in bankaccounts owned by corporate organisations, government agencies orindividuals that are without bank verification numbers (BVNs) willbe forfeited to the federal government in 14 days from the datethe order was given should the owners of the accounts fail to showcause why their monies should not be forfeited.

Justice Nnamdi Dimgba Igwe had granted the order on October 18,2017, following an application by the Attorney-General of theFederation, Mr. Abubakar Malami (SAN) on behalf of the federalgovernment.

But investigations by THISDAY on Oct. 22 showed that the bankswere contemplating filing a class-action suit to stop the federalgovernment from appropriating funds that do not belong to it.

When contacted the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) chose to remainmum on the issue, but a director of the bank said he would notblame the banks if they chose to challenge the court order.

"If I were a banker, I would go to court to challenge this order.I will not blame them if they did so," the director who preferrednot to be named, said to THISDAY.

According to the Nigerian Interbank Settlement System (NIBSS), 52million bank accounts had been linked to their BVNs as of Februarythis year. The total number of bank accounts in the country wasestimated at 70 million in 2016.

But speaking in a chat with THISDAY, a bank chief executive, whospoke on the condition of anonymity, questioned the legality ofthe move by the federal government.

According to the CEO, the move would discourage financialinclusion and might affect financial system stability.

"What of a situation where somebody has died and the matter is inadministration, what do you want the bank to do? To givegovernment the money and face litigation?

"What of Nigerians who are abroad and are still struggling to gettheir BNVs? What if we send the monies to government and we aresued by the customer(s)?

"And the 14-day time frame is very short. Why the rush? Why notgive a time frame, maybe till 2018 for people to get their BVNs?These are the type of things that create uncertainty andinstability in the market. We are just coming out of a recessionand we try to discourage anything that would destabilise thesystem.

"We are trying to drive financial inclusion, but there are manypeople who are not in the banking system that may not want to openaccounts once they hear of such things happening," he said.

In his reaction, the chief executive of Financial DerivativesCompany Limited, Mr. Bismarck Rewane also pointed out that if thedecision by the court is implemented, it would lead to a liquiditysqueeze in the market.

But Rewane stated that the court ruling would help sanitise thesystem.

"It does mean that all that money would be transferred to thecentral bank and that would drain liquidity. Let's say it is N500billion in all the banks and the banks are to comply bytransferring the monies to the central bank account which is thefederal government's bank.

"The immediate impact is that of liquidity squeeze and the secondimpact is that it would sanitise the system and also improve theculture of honesty and transparency. However, it may encouragethe banks to be dishonest in their returns," he added.

But in his assessment of the development, the chief executive ofthe defunct Progress Bank, Mr. Okechukwu Unegbu argued that theruling was "basically illegal".

Unegbu wondered under what law the ruling was given. "Was thereany federal gazette on that? Who was the case against?" hewondered.

He added: "In fact, if that is done to anybody's account, theperson has the right to go to court. But for me, if it issomething the federal government wants to pursue, let them comeout with a law.

"But I must tell you that we are still feeling the impunity of themilitary mentality. Remember that in banking, your relationshipwith the customer is confidential.

"However, if the government comes up with a policy to enable it tofight corruption, all of us would support it. But you don't usedraconian laws to enforce such things."

According to Unegbu, the federal government ought to be developingpolicies that would encourage financial inclusion and not thosethat discourage it.

He added that some of the challenges around the BVN scheme oughtto have been corrected before resorting to the courts.

"Even the BVN scheme has its problems. If you go to the bank mostof the time, before you conclude it, it takes a lot of time.Atimes when you register, the bank will call you back to come andregister again.

"The environment should be put right first. If the environment isfaulty, there is nothing bank customers can do. Besides, thisshould be extended to the microfinance banks, where most of theircustomers do not have BVNs yet.

"So there are holes in the so-called court order. But any orderfrom a court should be obeyed, but it can still be challenged.

"Honestly, I am disturbed because I see it as an order givenwithout considering the challenges in the environment," he noted

In his reaction, a former Managing Director of the defunct LibertyBank, Chief Lawson Omokhodion welcomed the court order, arguingthat it would help the government in its anti-corruption war.

When asked about what would become of the fate of bank customersin the diaspora, Omokhodion said: "People in the diaspora have notgone forever. They come home during Christmas, some come once ayear and some come twice a year.

"So they have time to link their BVNs to their accounts. Also, thecentral bank created centres outside the country to enable them todo that."

He added: "But the truth is that there is no person who genuinelyworked for his money, who would not be concerned about the safetyof his funds. If I have 25,000 pounds in a British bank accountand they tell me there are things I need to do to preserve mymoney, I would run down there immediately.

"So why won't you if you are truly the owner of this account? Youwould run back to sort things out and return. So for megovernment is doing the right thing. Government sometimes has beentoo soft. This country requires tough measures to create order."

However, human rights lawyer, Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa described asillegal, the order granting the forfeiture of funds in accountswithout BVNs to the federal government.

In a statement, Adegboruwa, citing Section 36(1) of the 1999Constitution and Article 7 of the African Charter, said it was notproper to determine the rights of parties in their absence.

He said the BVN was a policy decision and not "backed by law".

The lawyer also faulted the "bindingness" of the order on millionsof bank customers who he said were not directly parties to thesuit, reported The Cable, an online news site.

He said the quest to get revenue for the government should not beto the detriment of the constitutional and fundamental rights ofthe citizens.

"I am very well concerned about how we deploy interim orders forpermanent purposes, such as to forfeit valuable assets without anyor fair hearing from the person(s) concerned," the statement read.

"I think it is improper to obtain interim orders to freeze thebank accounts of estates that are in dispute between thebeneficiaries, of estates of deceased persons that are still beingcontested, of profits of companies that are still subject tolitigation or other disputes, just to mention a few examples ofthe arbitrariness of these orders.

"There is nothing in Section 3 of the Money Laundering(Prohibition) Act 2011 that makes BVN a condition precedent foroperating a bank account in Nigeria. Nothing at all. What thelaw requires is verifiable identity of the customer, such as name,address, photographs, identity cards, etc.

"BVN is a policy decision of the Central Bank of Nigeria and acourt of law should not base its orders on executive policies thatare not backed by law.

"I get truly worried with the way we adopt ex parte applicationsto determine very serious and weighty issues of law.

"The other point is the bindingness of an ex parte order upon thewhole world and upon millions of bank customers in Nigeria, whoare not directly parties to the suit.

"How proper is it for a court to seek to determine the rights ofparties in their absence, in view of the clear provisions ofSection 36(1) of the 1999 Constitution and Article 7 of theAfrican Charter?

"Why this desperation, if one may ask? I support that moneysuspected to be proceeds of crime should be traced, isolated andforfeited if the owner cannot successfully account for it.

"But to proceed to seek to forfeit all monies in all banks meantfor all customers in Nigeria on the grounds of absence of BVN ismanifestly illegal.

"I therefore humbly urge the Honourable Attorney-General of theFederation to review this case with a view to tempering the tenorof these rather outlandish orders.

"The quest to scoop revenue for government should not be to thedetriment of the constitutional and fundamental rights of thecitizens. Which is why I have been praying that these orders arenot real, but rather one of the usual social media gimmicks," hesaid. [GN]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was not paid at or abovethe applicable overtime wage for each hour worked. The Plaintiffworked approximately 45 hours each week but was only paid for 40hours each week.[BN]

O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE: FCRA Suit Remanded to Missouri State Court---------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Western District ofMissouri, Western Division, issued an Order granting Plaintiff'sMotion to Remand the case captioned REBECCA COURTRIGHT and RAPHAELSAYE, Individually and on Behalf of All Others, Plaintiffs, v.O'REILLY AUTOMOTIVE STORES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-00334-CV-W-DGK, Consol. with: 4:15-00134-CV-DGK (W.D. Mo.).

This case is a putative class action brought under the Fair CreditReporting Act (FCRA). Plaintiffs allege Defendants failed tocomply with various federal and state mandates for obtaining andusing consumer reports and investigative consumer reports foremployment purposes.

Article III standing requires the plaintiff to have (1) sufferedan injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challengedconduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressedby a favorable judicial decision. The Court noted that in theirsubsequent briefing, however, Plaintiffs did not assert that theyhad suffered an injury in fact.

There has been some confusion among district courts whetherdismissal or remand is appropriate where a defendant removes acase to federal court and the plaintiff lacks standing. The EighthCircuit has recently reaffirmed that these cases should beremanded.

Accordingly, the Court ordered the remand of this case to theCircuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri.

The Plaintiff, a stockholder of Orbital ATK, Inc., brings thisaction against the members of Orbital's Board of Directors forviolations of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).Specifically, Defendants solicit the vote of common stockholdersof Orbital in connection with the sale of the Company to NorthropGrumman Corporation through a preliminary proxy statement thatomits material facts necessary to make the statements therein notfalse or misleading. Stockholders need this material informationto decide whether to tender their shares or pursue their appraisalrights.

On September 17, 2017, the Company and Northrop Grumman enteredinto a definitive agreement under which Northrop Grumman willacquire all of the outstanding common shares of Orbital in an all-cash transaction. If consummated, shareholders will receive$134.50 in cash per common share of Orbital. The ProposedTransaction has an equity value of approximately $7.8 billion. OnOctober 2, Defendants issued materially incomplete and misleadingdisclosures in the Schedule 14A Preliminary Proxy Statement filedwith the United States Securities and Exchange Commission inconnection with the Proposed Transaction. The Proxy is deficientand misleading in that it fails to provide adequate disclosure ofall material information related to the Proposed Transaction.

Orbital is a Delaware corporation that develops, manufactures, andsupplies aerospace and defense system products to the governmentof the United States and allied nations. The main products includelaunch vehicles and related propulsion systems, satellites andassociated components and services, composite aerospacestructures, tactical missiles, subsystems and defense electronics,and precision weapons, armament systems and ammunition.[BN]

This action stems from a proposed transaction announced onSeptember 18, 2017, pursuant to which Orbital ATK, Inc. will beacquired by Northrop Grumman Corporation and Neptune Merger Sub,Inc. On September 17, Orbital ATK's Board of Directors caused theCompany to enter into an agreement and plan of merger withNorthrop Grumman. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement,shareholders of Orbital ATK will receive $134.50 in cash for eachshare of Orbital ATK stock they own. On October 2, defendantsfiled a Preliminary Proxy Statement with the United StatesSecurities and Exchange Commission in connection with the ProposedTransaction. The Proxy Statement omits material information withrespect to the Proposed Transaction, which renders the ProxyStatement false and misleading. Accordingly, plaintiff allegesthat defendants violated Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the ProxyStatement.

Orbital ATK is an American aerospace manufacturer and defenseindustry company. It was formed in 2015 from the merger of OrbitalSciences Corporation and parts of Alliant Techsystems.[BN]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff began working fordefendant at his office located at Terminal C, Concourse C1,Newark Liberty Airport, Newark, New Jersey 07114 on June 14, 2016.The Plaintiff was terminated from her employment on or aroundSeptember 26, 2016. On July 8, 2016, while plaintiff was working,she asked one worker named Rosina to assist another femaleemployee named Glory. In response, Rosina said to plaintiff, "Fuckyou, you faggot."

Plaintiff is a lesbian, a fact that her coworkers were aware ofbecause she told them. When Rosina made this comment, plaintiffattempted to deescalate the situation, but Rosina continuedyelling in her face. After that incident, the supervisor at thattime, Jean, wrote both plaintiff and Rosina up as a result of theincident. Plaintiff told Jean that she was not going to sign thewrite up. He responded by yelling at plaintiff, and then told herthat, "You'll see what happens to you." Around the same time,plaintiff's coworkers, a female named Fadia and another femalenamed Nafia became aware of the fact that plaintiff was in arelationship with another woman. Plaintiff told both Fadia andNafia that she was in a relationship with a woman, because theykept asking her questions about her personal relationships. Afterplaintiff told Fadia and Nafia that she was in a relationship witha woman, the two of them stopped being friendly with her.

Plaintiff never used her phone to record other employees, and shetold that to the three individuals at the meeting. The threeindividuals at the meeting also told plaintiff that they caughther on camera eating a croissant. The Plaintiff was terminated atthat meeting. At the time of her termination, plaintiff wasperforming her job duties up to and above expectation. All of theharassment plaintiff was subjected to was unwelcomed. Allharassment is alleged to be severe and pervasive. All harassmentis alleged to have been because of plaintiff's gender, her sexualorientation and/or in retaliation for plaintiff engaging inprotected conduct. All harassment is such that a reasonable womanin plaintiff's circumstance would have found her work environmentaltered to have become hostile, intimidating or abusive.

The Plaintiff asks that the Court order the defendants to ceaseand desist all conduct inconsistent with the claims made, both asto the specific plaintiff and as to all other individualssimilarly situated.

OTG is a restaurateur which operates more than 350 restaurants andretail concepts in 10 airports across North America. In 2016 and2014, it ranked among the World's 50 Most Innovative Companies byFast Company Magazine.[BN]

Specifically, Mr. Ragsdale said the rehab and skilled nursingfacility is breaking the Illinois Biometric Information PrivacyAct (BIPA), a law that regulates the collection and storage ofbiometric data such as fingerprints, iris scans or facerecognition technology.

"Unlike a Social Security number, which can be changed, no amountof time or money can compensate [workers] if their fingerprintsare compromised by the lax procedures through which defendantscapture, collect, store and use their workers' biometrics,"according to the suit, as reported by Law360.

Mr. Ragsdale has asked the court to stop Paramount from collectingmore fingerprint data and force the provider to destroy theinformation it has on file. He's also asked for an unspecifiedamount of damages and legal fees.

This case is the most recent in a wave of BIPA suits filed againstcompanies in recent months, according to Brian Spang, an attorneyin the Chicago office of national law firm Epstein Becker Green.Grocery store chain Roundy's Supermarkets, Kimpton hotels and datacenter operator Zayo Group have all recently ended up in thecrosshairs of such lawsuits, the Chicago Tribune reported.

Other Illinois nursing homes could be vulnerable to such suits inthe future if they use similar fingerprint scanning or otherbiometric data collection methods, Mr. Spang said. [GN]

PARAMOUNT OF OAK PARK: Faces "Ragsdale" Suit over Biometric Info----------------------------------------------------------------MARTIN RAGSDALE, individually and on behalf of similarly situatedindividuals, the Plaintiff, v. PARAMOUNT OF OAK PARKREHABILITATION & NURSING CENTER, LLC, an Illinois limitedliability company, and A TIED ASSOCIATES, LLC, an Illinois limitedliability company, the Defendants, Case No. 2017CH13911 (in theCircuit Court of Cook County, Illinois County, Oct. 17, 2017),seeks to recover damages and other legal and equitable remediesresulting from the illegal actions of Defendants in capturing,collecting, storing, and using Plaintiffs' and other similarlysituated individuals' biometric identifiers and biometricinformation without informed written consent, in direct violationof the Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

This case is about nursing home providers capturing, collecting,storing, and using Plaintiffs and other workers' biometricidentifiers and/or biometric information without regard to BIPAand the concrete privacy rights and pecuniary interests Illinois'BIPA protects. Defendants do this in the form of finger scanswhich capture a person's fingerprint and uses that to identifythat same person in the future.

Following the 2007 bankruptcy of a company specializing in thecollection and use of biometric information, which risked the saleor transfer of millions of fingerprint records to the highestbidder, the Illinois legislature passed detailed regulationsaddressing the collection, use and retention of biometricinformation by private entities, such as Defendants. Choosing toshun more traditional timekeeping methods, Defendants have insteadimplemented an invasive program that relies on the capture,collection, storage, and use of their workers' fingerprints, whiledisregarding the applicable Illinois statute and the privacyinterests it protects.

PepsiCo, Inc. is an American multinational food, snack, andbeverage corporation headquartered in Purchase, New York. PepsiCohas interests in the manufacturing, marketing, and distribution ofgrain-based snack foods, beverages, and other products.[BN]

PERCHERON PROFESSIONAL: "Nash" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages------------------------------------------------------ROBERT NASH and JEFFREY PEPPER, on behalf of themselves and allothers similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. PERCHERONPROFESSIONAL SERVICES, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 6:17-cv-06718-MAT (W.D.N.Y., Oct. 17, 2017), seeks to recover unpaid wages,overtime premium pay, and liquidated damages under the New YorkLabor Law. This class action case arises out of the systematicunlawful treatment of Plaintiffs and other similarly situatedformer Right of Way Agents (Row Agent) who worked for Mason Dixonon gathering line and pipeline projects within or based around NewYork.

Percheron Professional Services, LLC provides contract landservices to oil and gas exploration and production companies.[BN]

According to the complaint, Plaintiff and the Class Membersregularly worked in excess of 40 hours a week and were paid at thestraight-time hourly rate for the hours. Plaintiff was not paid atan overtime rate for any of the hours.[BN]

PLUS500: Law Firm Prepares Class Action Over CFD Markets Rigging----------------------------------------------------------------Samuel Haig, writing for Bitcoin.com, reports that online tradingplatform Plus500 is reported to have become the subject of legalaction, owing to accusations that the company has been "rigging"its contracts for difference (CFD) markets. Plus500 offercontracts for CFDs for shares, commodities, forex, and over half adozen cryptocurrencies.

Plus500 Is Accused of Intentionally Delaying the Execution ofTrade Requests

Luca Salerno, a representative of Giambrone, the European law firmthat is currently preparing the class action lawsuit, discussedthe class action against Plus500 with the Australian BroadcastingCorporation. "We have more than 600 people who got in touch withus, and we've managed to turn 30 percent into actual claims," Mr.Salerno said. Plus500 is listed on the London Stock Exchange andoffers trading products internationally through subsidiarieslocated in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Cyprus, andIsrael.

Mr. Salerno states Plus500 engaging in "rigging the platform",accusing the company of failing to execute its customers'requesting trade actions in a timely manner. Mr. Salerno statesthat "each client lost $10,000 [USD], typically, within atimeframe of a couple of months."

"I Think the Way [Plus500] Set up Their System Is Very Unfair" -Yousif Sadik, former Plus500 customer

Mr. Slareno alleges that the Plus500 is able to do this throughletting its customers trade CFDs, rather than the underlyingassets represented by the CFDs. "Let's say I make a bet today onbitcoin going up," Mr. Salerno explained, "[Plus500] would say 'bythe time we managed to execute the transaction, bitcoin went downagain." Mr. Salerno states that Plus500's practices "fl[y] in theface" of UK market regulations, and accuses the company of"build[ing]. . . delay[s in transaction execution] on purpose."

Yousif Sadik, a former customer of Plus500, asserts that he haswitnessed the platform delay the execution of action requests onmultiple instances. "To be honest, I feel that was deliberatebecause it didn't happen just once. If it was a one-off . . . youcould understand it. But if it's something that persisted everyweek, you really need to look into your service." Mr. Sadikalleges that disruptions consistently experienced whilstattempting to access Plus500 via a mobile app resulted in himlosing thousands of pounds.

"I think the way [Plus500] set up their system is very unfair.They basically disable the instrument whenever they want",Mr. Sadik told media. "You should be able to open close positionsas you please, but this is not how it works. It's more likegambling than trading."

A Representative of Plus500 Has Refuted the Purported LawsuitPlus500 Purportedly Subject to Litigation Over Allegations Of"Rigging" CFD Markets

A Plus500 representative is reported to have told the AustralianBroadcasting Corporation that there is "no outstanding litigationagainst the company", and that it has "received no correspondencefrom lawyers [associated] with Giambrone."

The spokesperson asserted that signing up to sue Plus500necessitates that an individual pass the company's screeningprocess which "requires each customer to pass a knowledge test,state [their] level of experience with derivative products . . .and other questions regarding their economic profile andappropriateness." Plus500 also claims to take "reasonable steps'"to achieve "the best possible result" for trading customers.

In order to evaluate Plus500's screening process, Mr. Salernointentionally failed the knowledge test provided by Plus500. Mr.Salerno states that he was then taken to a page providing a waiverthat prospective customers can sign and upload in order to gainaccess to the platform, despite having failed the knowledge test."By clicking that waiver, I was effectively saying I'm not reallyqualified to do this trading . . . and that is something theycannot do," said Mr. Salerno. [GN]

POP WARNER: Must Face Class Action Over Lack of Safety Protocols----------------------------------------------------------------Chris Thompson, writing for Deadspin, reports that a U.S. DistrictCourt Judge in California has allowed a class-action lawsuitagainst Pop Warner Little Scholars, Inc. to proceed after agreeingthat the league increased the danger to youth footballparticipants by failing to institute league-wide safety protocolsand guidelines, according to Law360.com.

"Pop Warner Little Scholars argues that the fraud claims failbecause head trauma is an inherent risk of tackle football," thejudge wrote, but what the parents are alleging is "that PWLSmisrepresented that safety was its top priority, with coachestrained in head injuries, equipment that afforded the bestprotection, and rules and procedures designed to protect childrenfrom injury -- all with the knowledge that none of this was true,to boost the number of Pop Warner participants."

Reports of declining participation in Pop Warner football -- and,more generally, all 11-player full-contact youth football -- havebeen circulating for years, with some evidence that the decline isrelated to increased concern about head injuries. Pop Warner andUSA Football adopted the Heads Up program after its establishmentin 2012, but this lawsuit alleges that Pop Warner overstated itsfocus and commitment to the safety of its participantsspecifically in order to facilitate increased participation. Inother words, instead of making youth football safer in response todeclining participation, Pop Warner is accused of endeavoring onlyto make it seem safer, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The case was brought last year by the parents of two kids who werefound to have suffered from chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE)during postmortem autopsies. A New York Times report noted thatthe parents -- Kimberly Archie and Jo Cornell -- are representedby lawyers with experience representing NFL players in actionsagainst the league for knowingly obscuring the risks of headtrauma.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Manufacturer Defendantsmisrepresented the risks and benefits of FDA-approved prescriptionopioid medications in marketing and promotional materials. ThePlaintiff alleges that because of these misrepresentations-many ofwhich purportedly occurred more than a decade ago-Ohio physiciansprescribed opioid medications to patients when it was medicallyunnecessary. The Plaintiff claims that these allegedly improperprescriptions somehow caused Plaintiff and similarly situated Ohiocounty agencies to incur a range of opioid-related costs,including "increased child placement costs, investigation costs,health care costs, criminal justice and victimization costs,social costs, and lost productivity costs."

Purdue Pharma L.P. is a privately held pharmaceutical company. In2007, it paid out one of the largest fines ever levied against apharmaceutical firm for mislabeling its product OxyContin, andthree executives were found guilty of criminal charges.[BN]

According to the complaint, up to approximately May 2017,Defendants repeatedly and willfully violated Sections 7 and 15 ofthe FLSA by failing to compensate Plaintiff at a rate not lessthan 1-1/2 times his regular rate of pay for each hour worked inexcess of 40 in a workweek. Specifically, Plaintiff, and allothers similarly situated, were only paid their hourly rate foreach hour worked, without being paid the additional half-timepremium for their overtime work. The work schedules for thePlaintiff, and all others similarly situated, required them towork 12 hour shifts, 5 to 7 days a week, during numerousworkweeks.[BN]

The Defendants are in the construction industry. Plaintiff workedfor Ramirez Services LLC on job sites across Atlanta, performingvarious construction labor tasks. The Plaintiff worked for RamirezServices LLC as a construction laborer. The Plaintiff was paidstraight-time for all hours worked, despite working in excess of40 hours per week throughout their employment.[BN]

The Plaintiff brings this class action to fully compensate theCalifornia Class for their losses incurred during the CaliforniaClass Period caused by Defendant's uniform policies, practices andprocedures which failed and continue to fail to properlycompensate these non-exempt employees for all of the hours theywork, including overtime.

The Defendant provides and sells back pain relief products andself-care back pain solutions, including massage chairs, tempur-pedic mattresses and pillows, and ergonomic office furniture. TheDefendant provides and sells its products through retail franchiseboutiques throughout the State of California.[BN]

According to the docket entry made by the Clerk on October 30,2017, the status hearing was held and continued to Nov. 16 at10:00 a.m. Plaintiff's motion to compel discovery, Defendant'smotion for a protective order, and Plaintiff's class certificationmotion are entered and continued. The parties were required tofile a joint status report indicating which discovery issues haveand have not been resolved by the close of business on Nov. 1,2017.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as an electrician. Plaintiff waspaid at an hourly rate. Plaintiff was not paid for several days ofwork and did not receive overtime pay for hours worked over 40 perweek. Defendants further improperly labeled Plaintiff as anindependent contractor and improperly issued Plaintiff an IRS 1099Form for 2015. Defendants have willfully violated the clear andwell-established straight time, minimum wage and overtimeprovisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, Maryland Wage Paymentand Collection Law, District of Columbia Wage Payment andCollection Law. By improperly labeling Plaintiff as an independentcontractor and issuing an IRS 1099 Form in 2015 to Plaintiff,Defendants have also violated the Maryland Workplace Fraud Act.The Plaintiff is aware of other current and former employees ofDefendants who are similarly situated and who should have theopportunity to "opt-in" to this action to assert their rights tounpaid wages under the FLSA against Defendants.[BN]

Santini Foods offers a full line of organic evaporated milk,evaporated milk, organic sweetened condensed and sweetenedcondensed milk to the marketplace, syrups & sauces. Defendantsemployed Hernandez as an hourly-paid, non-exempt employee, fromapproximately January 1999 to August 2016 [BN]

The Plaintiff was a building superintendent and handyman whoworked for Defendants from 2003 to August 8, 2017. Throughout thecourse of his employment, Plaintiff regularly worked as many assix days a week, and well over 40 hours each week -- including therequirement that he be on-call 24 hours a day, seven days a weekto deal with any issues that arose in the building -- withoutreceiving minimum wages and/or overtime pay as required bylaw.[BN]

"all persons with addresses in the State of Wisconsin to whom Simm Associates, Inc. mailed an initial written communication, between May 31, 2016 and June 21, 2017, which was not returned as undeliverable, and which identified "Paypal Credit" as the "Client" but not the current creditor or owner of the debt."

Excluded from the Class is SIMM and its officers, members,partners, managers, directors and employees and their respectiveimmediate families, and legal counsel for all parties to thisaction and all members of their immediate families.

The Plaintiff further asks the Court that his attorneys, STERNTHOMASSON LLP and EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC, beappointed counsel for the class.

This case is a federal securities class action on behalf of aclass consisting of all persons other than Defendants whopurchased or otherwise acquired Skechers common stock betweenApril 23, 2015 and October 22, 2015, both dates inclusive.

Skechers designs, develops, and markets footwear for men, women,and children. The Company's primary reporting segments are: (1)Domestic Wholesale; (2) International Wholesale; and (3) Retail(which includes both domestic and international Company stores).From 2013 through 2015, Domestic Wholesale was the Company'sprimary driver of growth and accounted for higher net sales ascompared to the other two segments. The Domestic Wholesale segmentaccounted for approximately 39% of Skechers' 2015 total net sales.The Company's Domestic Wholesale customers include departmentstores, athletic footwear retailers, and specialty shoe stores.

During the Class Period, Skechers repeatedly touted the strengthof customer demand within the Domestic Wholesale segment, whichthe Company claimed would spur continued sales growth. Skechersfrequently emphasized that its Domestic Wholesale segment growthwould continue into the second half of 2015 based on pendingorders and meetings with key customers.

Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false andmisleading statements regarding the Company's business,operational and compliance policies. Specifically, Defendants madefalse and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that:(i) the Company's Domestic Wholesale customers took early receiptof fall 2015 inventory, causing them to delay receipt of and, insome cases, cancel pending orders scheduled for delivery in thesecond half of 2015; (ii) as a result of the foregoing, theCompany's Domestic Wholesale growth rate was unsustainable; and(iii) as a result of the foregoing, Skechers' public statementswere materially false and misleading at all relevant times. TheCompany's slowing sales growth was revealed on October 22, 2015after the market closed, when Skechers issued a press releaseannouncing financial results for the third quarter ended September30, 2015, which included disappointing net sales that fell shortof analysts' consensus estimates.

According to Defendants, $20 million in net sales were shiftedfrom third quarter 2015 into second quarter 2015 due to earlycustomer deliveries. Defendants blamed the sales miss on theCompany's inability to make up this shortfall in third quarter2015 due to a weaker-than-expected retail environment.

On news of the Company's disappointing net sales and dilutedearnings per share, Skechers common stock fell $14.55 per share,or 31.50 percent, to close on October 23, 2015 at $31.64 pershare. As a result of Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions, andthe precipitous decline in the market value of the Company'ssecurities, Plaintiff and other Class members have sufferedsignificant losses and damages.

Founded in 1992, the Company is headquartered in Manhattan Beach,California and its common stock trades on the New York StockExchange under the ticker symbol "SKX."[BN]

According to the complaint, for at least four years prior to thefiling of this action and continuing to the present, Defendantshave had a consistent policy or practice of failing to payovertime wages to Plaintiff and other non-exempt employees in theState of California in violation of California state wage and hourlaws as a result of, without limitation, Plaintiff and similarlysituated employees routinely working over 8 hours per day or 40hours per week without being properly compensated for hours workedin excess of 8 hours per day or 40 hours per week by, among otherthings, failing to track all hours worked, failing to pay for alltracked hours worked, auto-deducting pay for worked time, andpaying overtime hours worked at the regular rate of pay.

Stanley Steemer is a US-based company that provides carpetcleaning, tile and grout cleaning, upholstery cleaning, hardwoodfloor cleaning and air duct cleaning.[BN]

STURM & RUGER: Faces "Palmer" Suit over 10/22 Target Rifles-----------------------------------------------------------DAVID S. PALMER, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated, the Plaintiff, v. STURM, RUGER & CO., INC., theDefendant, Case No. 62939091 (Circuit Court for the 13th JudicialCircuit in and for Hillsborough County, Fla., Oct. 17, 2017),seeks to recover damages and other equitable remedies resultingfrom the unlawful conduct of Defendant in negligently or knowinglyand/or willfully advertising its 10/22 Target Rifles as beingequipped with a two-stage target trigger when, in fact, no suchtrigger was ever manufactured for any of Ruger's 10/22 TargetRifles, in violation of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair TradePractices Act, breach of Express Warranty, and Unjust Enrichment.

Ruger is an American firearm manufacturing company, which wasfounded in 1949 by Alexander McCormick Sturm and William B. Rugerand has been publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange since1990.[BN]

SUNCORP: Faces Litigation Threat Over Add-on Car Insurance----------------------------------------------------------Liam Walsh, writing for The Courier-Mail, reports that Suncorp hasfound some of its add-on insurance sold through motor dealers isflawed and is considering "remediation", which for rivals hasresulted in multimillion-dollar refunds.

Brisbane-based Suncorp has been "working with" the AustralianSecurities and Investments Commission on the problem, which itrevealed in a prospectus for a $250 million fundraising drive.

The prospectus further stated a solicitor had sent a letter eightmonths ago indicating "they were contemplating commencing" a classaction about add-on insurance, but no proceedings had been filed.

ASIC last year issued a warning to the insurance sector aboutselling add-on protection through car dealers, saying a survey had"found that the products are expensive, of poor value and provideconsumers very little or no benefit".

Then several months ago, Sydney-based insurer QBE refunded morethan 35,000 customers $16 million. The QBE products includedconsumer credit insurance that had been "sold to young people whohad no dependants and who were unlikely to need the cover", ASICdetermined.

In the Suncorp case, its prospectus said "deficiencies" in add-oninsurance were linked to customers of subsidiary MTA Insurance,which the Queensland insurer acquired in 2014.

The prospectus was released as Suncorp looked to raise $250million from investors via special notes, which, while listed onthe ASX, were not traditional equities. The money would be usedfor "general corporate and funding purposes", Suncorp said.

Suncorp expects to pay a margin of between 3.65 per cent and 3.85per cent above bank bill rates, with Bendigo and Adelaide Bankraising $300 million at a 3.75 per cent margin.

Suncorp declined to answer specific questions about the insurance,but said it "worked closely" with ASIC. [GN]

SUNSHINE BANCORP: Law Firm Investigates Securities Violations-------------------------------------------------------------Juan Monteverde, founder and managing partner at Monteverde &Associates PC, a boutique securities firm headquartered at theEmpire State Building in New York City, is investigating SunshineBancorp, Inc. ("Sunshine" or the "Company") (NasdaqCM: SBCP)relating to the sale of the Company to CenterState BankCorporation. As a result of the merger, Sunshine shareholders willreceive 0.89 shares of CenterState common stock in exchange foreach share of Sunshine.

The investigation focuses on whether Sunshine and its Board ofDirectors violated securities laws and/or breached their fiduciaryduties to the Company's stockholders by 1) failing to conduct afair process 2) whether and by how much this proposed transactionundervalues the Company by and 3) failing to disclose all materialfinancial information in connection with the upcoming shareholdermeeting on November 17, 2017.

Monteverde & Associates PC is a boutique class action securitiesand consumer litigation law firm that has recovered millions ofdollars and is committed to protecting shareholders and consumersfrom corporate wrongdoing. Monteverde & Associates lawyers havesignificant experience litigating Mergers & Acquisitions andSecurities Class Actions, whereby they protect investors byrecovering money and remedying corporate misconduct. Mr.Monteverde, who leads the legal team at the firm, has beenrecognized by Super Lawyers as a Rising Star in SecuritiesLitigation in 2013 and 2017, an award given to less than 2.5% ofattorneys in a particular field.

If you own common stock in Sunshine and wish to obtain additionalinformation and protect your investments free of charge, pleasevisit our website or contact Juan E. Monteverde, Esq. either viae-mail at jmonteverde@monteverdelaw.com or by telephone at (212)971-1341. [GN]

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Cheam" Suit Moved to C.D. California-----------------------------------------------------------The class action lawsuit titled Sirica Cheam, as an individual andon behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC, a Limited LiabilityCompany and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No. 0973-20670343,was removed on Oct. 16, 2017 from the Superior Court of the Stateof California, County of Los Angeles, to the U.S. District Courtfor Central District of California in Los Angeles. The DistrictCourt Clerk assigned Case No. 2:17-cv-07570-PSG-MRW to theproceeding. The case is assigned to the Hon. Judge Philip S.Gutierrez.

TEZOS: ICO Investor Class Actions Hit Futures Price---------------------------------------------------Michael Kimani, writing for Cryptovest, reports that the futuresprice of Tezos is down 60% after getting slapped with news ofseveral mass class action suits by lawyers representing ICOcontributors. After raising $232 million of ether and bitcoin inJuly, the self-amending ledger blockchain project is now introuble.

Investors are responding to details revealed on Oct. 19 concerninga boardroom wrangle for control over ICO proceeds now valued at$400 million. The proceeds are held in custody by an independentSwiss Foundation, Tezos AG, headed by Johann Gevers as president.Controversy erupted when Arthur and Kathleen Breitman, Tezos CTOand CEO the president of the nonprofit, of mismanaging funds.

The dispute has now put the whole project on ice. Whilecontributors to an ICO typically receive tokens in some weeks ormonths, Tezos investors are still in the dark about when to expecttheir promised tokens.

A law firm based out of Boston has stepped to right the damageincurred by investors. Block & Leviton has launched aninvestigation into the initial coin offering on charges ofsecurities fraud. A memo on the firm's website is reaching out toTezos investors in a bid to represent as many as possible in aclass action suit.

"Block & Leviton LLP has launched an investigation on behalf ofinvestors in the Tezos Initial Coin Offering ("ICO"). If youinvested in the Tezos ICO and have questions about your legalrights or if you have information relevant to this investigation,please contact our attorney."

Projects like Tezos skirt securities regulation by only acceptingcryptocurrency funds in online crowdfunding events andsubsequently dishing out digital tokens to investors instead ofshares. This year alone, ICOs have raked in over $ 2 billion infunding primarily due to their supposed unregulated status.

But it wasn't long before regulators caught wind of theincredulous sums raised from retail investors.

In the last three months, a wave of announcements by financialauthorities in China, US, Canada, Hong Kong and multiple countrieshave cast doubt on the purported unregulated status of ICOs. TheUS Securities and Exchange Commission in August clarified sometokens indeed fall under federal securities law. If true, any casebrought against the Breitman's under US federal law wouldnecessitate a refund.

Restis Law, another law firm in San Diego, has already requestedTezos to refund all contributions made to the ICO. In a statement,the firm said:

"As time passes, and information continues to come to light, theTezos Initial Coin Offering ("ICO") is a textbook case of how NOTto raise money for blockchain projects. Luckily for U.S.investors, the federal securities laws allow for a refund."

Tezos investors now have to wait until February 2018, the earliestdate suggested by CTO Arthur Breitman for the dispute to resolveand the project to continue development. The other alternative isfor a full refund of ICO proceeds if the class action suits provesuccessful. [GN]

TEZOS: Nothing Secret About Acquisition, Tim Draper Says--------------------------------------------------------Cyril Gilson, writing for Cointelegraph, reports that on Oct. 22,Cointelegraph published its contributor Nick Ayton's opinion piececalled "What Lessons Can Be Learnt From Tezos ICO Debacle." Thepiece asked questions regarding the situation with the Tezos'sICO, the companies, foundations and persons that participated init.

It has recently been reported that a San Diego legal firm isconsidering filing a class action lawsuit on behalf of some USinvestors against the company Dynamic Ledger Solutions, Inc. that,as the law firm suggests, is holding the rights to the Tezosnetwork.

Cointelegraph's aim is serving the crypto community, for which thequestion of raising money for Blockchain projects is vital.That's why Cointelegraph considers the issues relating to thesecurity and trust during ICOs as being of utmost importance.

In his opinion piece, Nick Ayton has asked questions about thesale, Tim Draper's role in it, why was the Tezos token notregistered with the SEC, raising corresponding issues. Again,regardless of Nick Ayton's interpreting and questioning certainactors' actions and motives, the piece was clearly marked as"opinion" and should be considered as such. Cointelegraph's Termsof service agreement clearly underlines that: "the opinions ofauthors and other contributors are their own and should not betaken as financial advice . . . All materials on this site are forinformational purposes only. None of the material should beinterpreted as investment advice."

Tim Draper's statementMr. Draper has made a valuable comment regarding the articlewhich, being faithful to the standards of journalism ethics, weare happy to publish in full:

"This was brought to my attention. Please get your factsstraight. My fund is a long-term investor and holder of tokens. Iback promising entrepreneurs with the prospect of transformingsociety for the good of the customer. There was nothing secretiveabout our purchase of Tezos. We invested for ownership in thecompany, which at the time was two bright young people and anidea. The sale might not have happened at all! We alsoparticipated in the Pre-sale. Most ICO founders earn tokens overtime. All tokens we hope to receive that we didn't buy in thePre-sale (alongside with all the other investors who participated)will vest over time with the founders' tokens. I have nointention of selling these tokens because I am a true believer inthe Tezos mission: to build a Blockchain on proof of stake andopen it up for developers to build and invent on a new and morerelevant platform. It can be faster and more energy efficientthan existing solutions. It can have a hand in transformingeverything from healthcare to the insurance industry to realestate to government. Arthur and Cathleen are dedicated, honestand brilliant founders. They made it clear to me and the otherpurchasers that the token would require time to develop. If theyare successful, they might just transform society, and we will allbe better off as a result, and then, maybe 5 or ten years down theroad, my investors and I might get rich. I expect a fullretraction. And I think you should send Arthur and Cathleen someflowers and an apology." [GN]

"each person or entity that was sent one or more telephone facsimile messages after October 30, 2013 offering Genuine Lexmark Reconditioned Toner Cartridges available through www.tps-online.com or 1-800-878-2822 that did not inform the fax recipient that he or she may make a request to the sender of the advertisement not to send any future facsimile advertisements and that failure to comply with the request within 30 days in unlawful."

According to the complaint, TRS employees have been required toclock "in" and "out" of their work shifts by scanning theirfingerprints, and Defendant's biometric computer systems thenverify the employee and clock the employee "in" or "out." Unliketraditional time clock punch cards which can be changed orreplaced if lost or compromised, fingerprints are unique,permanent biometric identifiers' associated with each employee.This exposes Defendant's workforce to serious and irreversibleprivacy risks. For example, if a fingerprint database is hacked,breached, or otherwise exposed, employees have no means by whichto prevent identity theft and unauthorized tracking.

The lawsuit notes that BIPA expressly obligates Defendant toobtain an executed, written release from an individual, as acondition of employment, in order to capture, collect and store anindividual's biometric identifiers, especially a fingerprint, andbiometric information derived from it. BIPA further obligatesDefendant to inform its employees in writing that a biometricidentifier or biometric information is being collected or stored;to tell its employees in writing for how long it will store theirbiometric information and any purposes for which biometricinformation is being captured, collected, and used; and to makeavailable a written policy disclosing when it will permanentlydestroy such information.[BN]

TWITTER INC: Ex-Engineer Seeks to Lead Gender Bias Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------Joel Rosenblatt and Anne Reifenberg, writing for Bloomberg News,report that the way Tina Huang tells it, the path to herresignation from Twitter Inc. was a Kafkaesque experience. Shesaid she was denied a promotion, led to believe her coding skillswere inferior, asked to take a leave of absence, and scolded fortaking that leave.

Two years ago, she sued, contending that the companysystematically thwarts the advancement of female engineers. Sincethen, she's been gathering data on gender and pay for her peersthere and says she can prove Twitter stacks the deck. By January,she plans to ask a state judge for permission to represent 133female engineers at Twitter, in what would be the first group caseof its kind in Silicon Valley if certified.

Ms. Huang said in an interview the time is ripe to do somethingthat's never been done before: pry open entrenched, male-dominatedbarriers in the technology sector. One catalyst, she said, was aFebruary blog post by former Uber Technologies Inc. engineer SusanFowler, which detailed a predatory work environment, infighting, a"chaotic" organization and blatant sexual harassment. That posthelped lead to the founder and chief executive officer's ouster.

"You not only saw real action happen at Uber but you also saw theamount of the conversation" that followed, Ms. Huang said. "Womenwere emboldened by it."

Twitter has rejected Ms. Huang's claims in court filings and in astatement -- saying that she resigned voluntarily after beingdenied a second promotion and company leaders tried to persuadeher to stay.

"Twitter is deeply committed to a diverse and supportiveworkplace, and we believe the facts will show Ms. Huang wastreated fairly," the company said.

Larger Narrative

Since the suit was filed, the dynamics have changed in SiliconValley. In September, three women at Google sued the company in aclass action, claiming it systemically pays male employees morethan their female counterparts. Add to that a groundswell ofwomen speaking out in the past few months with complaints againsttech and venture capital companies alleging sexual harassment,underscoring the rocky terrain women face culturally andprofessionally.

"Hearing the stories from numerous other women has helped meunderstand how my incident, though unique in its details, is partof a larger narrative," Ms. Huang said. "It's basicallyimpossible for any individual to know with 100 percent certaintythat her promotion was denied due to gender. The only way tounderstand the systemic bias is for all of us to share ourexperience so we can look at what's happening on the whole."

Ms. Huang joined Twitter eight years ago as one of its firstengineers. In 2013, she was one of a number of people beingconsidered for a promotion.

Engineers at Twitter are placed on a "technical ladder," with aneight-rung hierarchy. When Ms. Huang joined the company, theladder didn't exist, but she was eventually slotted into thefourth rung. No woman had ever reached the fifth rung, yet it wasa critical step because it's where engineering jobs shift fromcoding and discrete projects to higher-level management.

Ms. Huang learned she didn't get the promotion in February 2014and promptly told the chief executive officer at the time,alerting him to her concerns that the process lacked transparencyand that she believed she was denied a promotion due to hergender. But it was hearing from a colleague that her coding, anengineer's fundamental tool of the trade, was deemed inadequatethat felt personal.

"Even though I knew it was bogus, it was a huge emotional toll,"Ms. Huang said. "It took years for me to recover confidence in myengineering and technical skills."

Apple, Google

Before Twitter, Ms. Huang had worked at Apple Inc., where shehelped develop the OS X operating system, and Google, where sheworked on Google News. She left both companies on good terms, andas of January 2014, a few months before she left Twitter, wasrated "exceptional" in a performance review.

Workers often have different experiences of bias, and courtsreject class actions when the facts vary too much by individual,an argument Twitter has already made in an early attempt to rebutHuang's case. But Ms. Huang's lawsuit seeks to show the result ofsystemic discrimination -- the impact -- rather than detailingtreatment.

"The principal difficulty the case will face is in judicialresistance to a story of discrimination that places responsibilityon the organization," said Tristin Green, a professor atUniversity of San Francisco School of Law who specializes inemployment discrimination.

Mr. Green said Ms. Huang and her lawyers face an uphill battle ifthey "can't convince a court to see the bigger picture oforganizational involvement."

Other women from Twitter who may join Ms. Huang's case haven'tbeen identified in court filings, though some may submitstatements to accompany her request for class-action status.

'Black Box'

Ms. Huang describes Twitter's promotion committee as a "blackbox." Employees up for promotion don't know who sits on it.There's no input from workers, no interview, no feedback orexplanation about the decision.

When Ms. Huang complained about discrimination, she says she wasurged by human resources to take a week off while managers lookedinto the matter, and then placed on indefinite leave amid aninvestigation that became a "state of limbo" dragging on forweeks.

The turning point came at the end of April, when she met withTwitter's head of engineering. Human resources had led her tobelieve the executive was reconsidering her promotion. Instead,Huang said, that person berated her for not being at work, clearlyunaware that she was asked to go on leave months earlier. She alsolearned her projects had been transitioned to other engineers.

"There was no intention of rectifying the situation," Ms. Huangsaid. "They didn't really want me back in the office."

Twitter said in a court filing that Ms. Huang's supervisor neversuggested she take time off. While she vacationed, Huang'smanager asked her what he should tell colleagues and she confirmed"personal leave," according to the filing.

The lawsuit against Google cites data from a 2015 review of thecompany by the U.S. Labor Department, which in a separate federaladministrative complaint found "systemic compensation disparitiesagainst women."

Jason Lohr, Ms. Huang's lawyer, thinks he can make a similar,evidence-based case. By using statistical samples to show how ittakes women longer to be promoted or that there are fewer womenbeing promoted, the lawsuit will focus on company policies thatproduce that outcome, he said.

Ms. Huang has since gone on to lead a startup, Transposit, with aninfusion of venture capital. What she's learned about how Twitterworks since filing her lawsuit has convinced her that criticismsof the quality of her coding skills weren't legitimate.

"I saw all the data, I saw all the feedback," Ms. Huang said. "Itwas just used as an excuse."

Mr. Lohr, Ms. Huang's lawyer, says there's safety in numbers."You can't turn to all women engineers at Twitter and say there'sa problem with all of them."

The case is a collective action brought by Plaintiff against UberTechnologies, Inc. alleging violations of the Equal Pay Act, onbehalf of herself and all similarly-situated employees nationwide.

Uber is a global provider of on-demand transportation and fooddelivery services. In 2015, Uber generated approximately $10.8billion dollars in revenue. Uber is a major employer withapproximately 12,000 employees, many of whom are engineers. As aresult of Uber's policies, patterns, and practices, femaleengineers receive less compensation and are promoted lessfrequently than their male counterparts. In addition to bringingthis action on her own behalf, Plaintiff also brings this actionon behalf of a collective of similarly situated current and formerfemale engineers employed by Uber in the United States, in orderto end Uber's discriminatory policies and make the classwhole.[BN]

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Class Action Over Safer Rides Feature----------------------------------------------------------------Rare Houston reports that as part of a class action settlement,Uber recently agreed to pay out millions to anyone who used their"safer rides" feature between Jan. 1, 2013, and Jan. 31, 2016.

Settlement documents show the crux of McKnight v. Uber centered onpeople who used the ride sharing service paying extra fees for adriver the company guaranteed 'safe,' when, as settlement partiesagreed.

Documents further described the methods Uber used to check thebackgrounds of its drivers as inadequate.

The lawsuit, filed back in December of 2014, points out howdrivers only needed to submit contact information, social securitynumber and driver's license number through an online form if theywanted to be marked 'safe' as an option for riders.

Part of the complaint for the settlement also reportedly stemmedhow Uber did not require drivers to meet physically with an Uberrepresentative or be fingerprinted.

Uber and the city of Houston previously clashed on the issue ofbackground checks, as well, with Mayor Turner refusing to budge onbackground check requirements to include fingerprinting, accordingto clicktohouston.com.

In this case, the court eventually ruled in Uber's favor, forcingthe company and Houston to reach an agreement to lower the amountof money and effort going into obtaining a license to drive withUber in Houston's city limits.

This June, a group of 19 Houston drivers also sued Uber over theirstatus as "independent contractors," which some of the partiesdescribed as a step above indentured servitude.

Court records showed a number of those parties wanted to be fullcompany employees, with the suit further claiming Ubermisrepresented how much drivers could realistically make workingfor the company.

In the latest legal disposition of the incidents, the McKnightlawsuit alleged Uber once again misrepresented its services, thistime for the safety of its passengers relying on the extra safetypromised with the designation.

Lawyers eventually came to a $32.5 million settlement, saying, ifyou qualify for a payout, your portion of the settlement will bedeposited automatically with an active Uber account.

If you quit on Uber after one of your, as the settlementdescribed, "unsafe" rides, January 2018 will be the cut off tofile a claim online.

The hearing on whether to approve the agreement is scheduled forFebruary 8, 2018. [GN]

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff and putative classmembers are all victims of Defendants' common policy and/or planto violate New York wage and hour statutes by: failing to provideovertime compensation to employees for work performed in excess of40 hours per week; failing to provide a statement to employeeswith every payment of wages accurately listing hours worked, ratespaid, gross wages, allowances, if any, claimed as part of theminimum wage, deductions and net wages; and failing to remitgratuities intended for employees.[BN]

Nak Kim Chhoeun and Mony Neth allege that beginning in October2017, they have been arbitrarily and unlawfully detained by U.S.Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE"). Petitioners' andclass members' families fled Cambodia in the 1970s to escape theKhmer Rouge's campaign of mass murder and torture. They arrived inthe United States as small children after their families securedrefugee status. Petitioners and class members have lived in theUnited States ever since. Almost all are lawful permanentresidents. Many have never set foot in Cambodia. In every possiblesense, the United States is their only home. Petitioners and classmembers were ordered removed based on criminal convictions -- inmany cases, decades-old convictions for offenses they committed asteenagers. They were released from ICE custody because Cambodiawould not accept their repatriation. They returned to theircommunities under orders of supervision, reporting regularly toICE and complying with the conditions of their release. Many haveU.S. citizen spouses, children, siblings, and relatives who relyon them for support. For years, they have cared for their familiesand led peaceful and productive lives in their communities.

Nonetheless, beginning on approximately October 1, ICE abruptlycommenced a series of raids and other enforcement actions acrossCalifornia and other states to detain Petitioners and classmembers without cause and without providing procedural protectionsrequired by law. ICE detained Petitioners and class memberswithout any evidence that Cambodia would now accept theirrepatriation. ICE also conducted raids in disregard of basicprocedural rights. On information and belief, Petitioners andclass members have received no adequate explanation of the reasonsfor detention, no opportunity to be heard regarding any purportedreasons for detention, and no individualized consideration beforea neutral decision maker regarding whether they pose a danger orflight risk that could warrant detention.

Petitioners bring this action on behalf of themselves andapproximately 1,900 other similarly-situated persons to preventand challenge arbitrary and indefinite detentions that violatestatutory and regulatory law as well as the Constitution.

According to the complaint, more than 100 Cambodian refugeesalready have been unlawfully detained in the October 2017 raids,and ICE continues to undertake unlawful actions to arbitrarilydetain Cambodians. Many of those targeted live in California, withlarge numbers residing in Long Beach, Modesto, and Stockton,California.[BN]

Plaintiffs received automated traffic law violations fromCrestwood for allegedly failing to come to a complete stop beforemaking a right turn on a red light at the intersection of CiceroAvenue and Cal Sag Road despite the fact there is no automatedtraffic signal on the said intersection, says the complaint.

VOCUS: To Sell New Zealand Assets Amid Shareholder Class Action---------------------------------------------------------------Corinne Reichert, writing for ZDNet, reports that Vocus hasannounced a decision to sell off its New Zealand business, with aproposed completion date by the end of FY18.

"The board has now determined that the Vocus New Zealand (VNZ)business will be prepared for sale finalising appointment ofadvisors," Vocus said in its investor update presentation onOct. 23.

"The board has also progressed its review of the non-coreAustralian assets: Advisors appointed to the sale of theAustralian datacentre assets [and] other non-core Australianassets will continue to be evaluated with regard to potentialdivestment or closure."

Its trading update on New Zealand included a net consumerbroadband subscriber growth of 3,365 customers in the firstquarter of FY18, with 16 percent share of all Ultra-Fast Broadband(UFB) connections as of the end of the quarter.

In total, Vocus had 192,000 broadband consumer services inoperation (SIOs) as of September 30, with 53,000 on the UFB at anaverage revenue per user (ARPU) of NZ$71.18 per month.

Vocus said it was also the fastest-growing energy retailer inAuckland, with 4,704 active energy customers for a total SIOnumber of 9,000.

Vocus had 21,000 mobile SIOs by the end of the period.

Despite also selling its stake in Macquarie Telecom for AU$41million in March, Vocus' full-year results announced in lateAugust saw a turnaround in its FY16 net profit of AU$64.1 millionto a net loss of AU$1.5 billion for FY17 due to "higher thanforecast net finance costs and a higher effective tax rate", alongwith what CEO Geoff Horth called "a more competitive businessenvironment" in both Australia and New Zealand.

Underlying net profit was AU$152.3 million, while underlyingearnings before interest, tax, depreciation, and amortisation(EBITDA), not including significant items during the year, wasAU$366.4 million, up 70 percent.

Revenue grew by 119 percent year on year to AU$1.8 billion, andthe company's net debt increased by 35 percent to AU$1.03 billionand is expected to climb even higher, to up to AU$1.06 billion forFY18.

In September, law firm Slater and Gordon announced that Vocuswould be facing a potential class action from its shareholdersover having downgraded its financial guidance in May.

According to Slater and Gordon, the proposed class action allegesthat "Vocus engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct because ithad no reasonable grounds for the original FY17 guidance issued inNovember 2016"; and that the telco "breached its obligations ofcontinuous disclosure by failing to disclose that it would notachieve the FY17 guidance".

The law firm said the proposed claim will be brought on behalf ofthose who purchased Vocus shares between November 29, 2016, andMay 2, 2017. Between these dates, the claim alleges that thecompany's shares traded significantly higher than their actualvalue due to Vocus' alleged misleading and deceptive conduct.

Mathew Chuk, Slater and Gordon principal lawyer, said Vocus'original guidance had relied on assumptions made about growing thebusiness through its AU$1.2 billion acquisition of Amcom in June2015, its merger with M2 in February 2016 to form the third-largest telecommunications provider in New Zealand and the fourth-largest in Australia worth more than AU$3 billion, and its AU$861million acquisition Nextgen Networks in July 2016.

However, Chuk said Vocus' presumptions that it would consequentlygain efficiencies by combining these businesses "was done withoutproper visibility of profitability".

As a result of its downgraded guidance, the company in Junereceived a takeover proposal from Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co(KKR) to acquire 100 percent of its shares at a price of AU$3.50per share via a scheme of arrangement, with Vocus then allowingKKR to conduct due diligence to explore whether a bindingtransaction could be agreed upon.

Shortly afterwards, Affinity Equity Partners submitted a takeoverproposal in July to acquire 100 percent of Vocus' shares at aprice of AU$3.50 per share via a scheme of arrangement to be paidin cash.

Two days before Vocus was due to announce its FY17 full-yearfinancial results, however, both takeover proposals wereterminated. [GN]

Pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement, each share ofWestar common stock will be converted into the right to receiveone share of Holdco common stock. Westar will be the survivingcorporation.

The complaint says the merger agreement contains a "nosolicitation" provision that prohibits the solicitation ofalternative proposals and severely constrains their ability tocommunicate and negotiate with potential buyers with betteroffers. Also, the merger consideration appears inadequate,claiming that the intrinsic value of the Company is materially inexcess of the amount offered while the Registration Statementomits financial projections and the analyses performed byGuggenheim Securities, LLC, its financial advisor.

Westar is an electric energy provider to approximately 687,000customers in east and east-central Kansas. [BN]

* BETTER FINANCE Calls for EU-Wide Collective Redress Framework---------------------------------------------------------------Mondovisione reports that earlier this year BETTER FINANCE calledon policy makers to put an end to financial abuses by ensuringbetter public enforcement of conduct of business rules andintroducing an EU-wide framework for Collective Redress in orderto facilitate effective private enforcement. Now the EuropeanCommissioner for Justice and Consumer Affairs is calling for anEU-wide Collective Redress framework.

In its briefing paper published ahead of its conference on publicand private enforcement, BETTER FINANCE took a deeper look at themis-selling of financial products and, unsurprisingly, concludedthat several key EU regulatory provisions pertaining to retailinvestor and saver protection are not properly enforced.

Besides proposals to improve the public enforcement of conduct offinancial business rules, BETTER FINANCE also called for an EUwide collective redress scheme. The lack of a properly developedframework for Private Enforcement hampers law enforcement effortsand stands in the way of providing more practical solutions toreduce detriment to financial services users.

In its briefing paper and at its conference in May 2017 BETTERFINANCE stressed that Collective Redress (if well designed like inthe Netherlands) would constitute an effective solution that canfacilitate and make legal remediation of damages incurred by EUcitizens as financial services users more effective andaffordable.

It now seems as though the need for a Pan-European collectiveredress mechanism has been finally acknowledged, as the EuropeanCommission's justice- and consumer-affairs chief Vera Jourovaannounced an 'EU-wide class-action' blueprint for March 2018."Consumers should have more help in grouping together to suecompanies and there should be a fresh EU initiative to back them",the European Commissioner said and added that the DG Justice"would like to propose EU-wide class action and collectiveredress".

Whereas no further details were provided as to which areas of lawthese new measures would apply to, BETTER FINANCE applaudsCommissioner Jourova's initiative and reiterates the importance ofCollective Redress for EU financial services users and thenecessity for EU citizens as savers and investors to have accessto such recourse. [GN]

* Fianna Fail Calls for Class Action Legislation Against Banks--------------------------------------------------------------Juno McEnroe and Joyce Fegan, writing for Irish Examiner, reportthat bank chiefs are facing the threat of tougher levies or evenfines if they fail to set out how and when customers ripped off bythe tracker mortgage scandal will be properly repaid andcompensated.

The five main banks will be asked to set out a clear timeline forcompensating borrowers and exactly how many must be repaid, whenthey meet the finance minister.

A rise in the bank levy, increased taxation, penalty fines, andenhanced consumer protection were flagged at the weekend byGovernment figures. Finance Minister Paschal Donohoe was set tomeet on Oct. 23 with the CEOs and chairmen of KBC, Bank ofIreland, and Permanent TSB, while Ulster Bank and AIB would alsobe quizzed at Government Buildings.

On Oct. 23, the Cabinet was expected to discuss responses from thebanks and options to resolve the tracker mortgage scandal.

Financial experts are predicting that as many as 30,000 peoplecould have been wrongly removed from their tracker mortgages andmoved onto a higher rate.

Mortgage campaigner David Hall told the Irish Examiner that,despite the Government promises, borrowers must be protected afterwhat was "stolen from them in the tracker scandal".

The pressure to act will also intensify as Fianna Fail moves aDail motion, demanding an inquiry and penalties.

Legislation to allow for class action suits should also beintroduced so borrowers can sue the banks, Fianna Fail says.

The prospect of fines for banks failing to adequately compensateborrowers is being strongly considered.

"If they act the bollix, we can get the money off them [for thosecustomers] by doing it this way," one minister told the IrishExaminer.

The minister pointed to a recent EUR4.5m fine for PTSB over itssubprime unit Springboard Mortgages, which it sold to Mars Capitalin 2014.

The junior rural affairs minister, Sean Kyne, also said thisthreat should be used with the banks.

"Whatever legislation is needed to fine the banks should beprepared now," he said.

"And I think that threat needs to be made by Minister Donohoe tothe banks, and have that rushed through the Dail, as it were,before Christmas if needed."

Junior finance minister Michael D'Arcy confirmed the prospect ofincreasing the bank levy or taxation on banks was "on the table".The current levy will bring in EUR750m by 2021.

Mr D'Arcy also suggested the consumer protection role of theCentral Bank may be removed and transferred to a stand-aloneauthority.

Taoiseach Leo Varadkar left open the option of financial penaltiesfor the banks. At a Fine Gael event on Oct. 21, he said: "We arevery frustrated at the lack of progress to date and we arecertainly not ruling out further sanction, further regulation, oradditional taxation on the banks."

Government sources said that between now and on Oct. 25, the sixlenders would be asked for exact figures and a timeline oncompensating customers.

If this is deemed unsatisfactory, sanctions, in combination withfresh legislation, will then be considered.

However, Sinn Fein's Pearse Doherty said empty promises were a"slap in the face" for customers, some of whom had lost homes orfamilies, or had emigrated.

"Banks don't do morals," said Mr Doherty, adding six of thelenders involved had not returned a cent to customers.

Meanwhile, an advocacy group representing people who lost homes asa result of the tracker scandal said it will take "aggressiveaction" against the banks.

The Irish Mortgage Holders Organisation wrote to banks asking themnot to sell any of the homes repossessed as a direct result of themortgage scandal. If the banks do not reply, it is understood theIMHO will seek a High Court injunction against them selling onthese properties. [GN]

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Joseph Cardillo at 856-381-8268.